Dear Michael, list,
Here is an example of “system of sensing”: *Hegseth, an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump who ran for a Minnesota Senate seat in 2012, has previously urged "healthy people" to "have some courage" and attempt to contract the coronavirus in order to build "herd immunity." * *"The governor can say the state is closed, but if we the people say the state is open, then ultimately there's not a lot you can do if every business steps out," Hegseth said while surrounded by protesters outside Atilis Gym on Monday. * *"That's pretty much the definition of responsible civil disobedience."* So what do *you* propose as the prescription from Pragmatism, the “feedback from the final interpretant situation into the emotional and motor reflexes”? From where I stand, it all appears vague. I mean, what in the world is PREDESTINATE opinion, as some have raised? Best, Jerry R On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:27 PM <michael...@waitrose.com> wrote: > List, > > Whilst there can be an infinite amount of interpreting by a potentially > limitless community, final interpretant isn't this. > > Alongside descriptions by for example Donna Williams, a writer on > neurology, the immediate interpretant corresponds to the pure perception > part of colour, shape, space, sounds, scent etc, and the dynamical one > is the emotional and motor reflexes ensuing either "automatically" or by > habit (fright, delight, retraction from danger) - Donna calls these two > combined the "system of sensing"; while the final interpretant comprises > those concepts one is used to adding, or freshly figures out, namely the > meaning or signification - Donna's "system of interpretation". When one > is unwell or is in delayed development, these occur in sequence or the > latter one(s) don't readily happen. > > In addition, there is feedback from the final interpretant situation > into the emotional and motor reflexes, e.g one decides it is horrible or > realises it is dangerous or recognises a thing one likes; this might > follow by a split second or, if a thing is new to one, longer. > > The same set of processes occur when the concretes are imagined and even > when they are fairly abstract. This is because imagination is the > laboratory or workshop atop our shoulders. Memory outputs into > imagination and so we can feel, analyse and discuss our memories. > > The central nervous system (CNS) handles the symbolism in the sensory > epistemology arising from physical reality, and there can be infinite > layers of symbols of symbols. > > Words allude, and when several of these intersect, we can have a > meaning. This is why reifying (which I see as taking "literally > literally") doesn't work. > > Any comments welcome. > > Michael Mitchell - linguist - UK > > On 2020-05-18 21:04, Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela wrote: > > > Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed > > > > ------------------------- > > > > DE: "Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com> > > À: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> > > CC: "Gary Fuhrman" <g...@gnusystems.ca>, "peirce-l" > > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > > ENVOYÉ: Lundi 18 Mai 2020 21:18:19 > > OBJET: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the > > classification of signs > > > > Dear Helmut, list, > > > > What an interesting observation. > > > > _meh_.. I don’t believe it. > > > > With best wishes, > > Jerry R > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:25 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > > wrote: > > > >> List > >> > >> do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the > >> final interpretant is the first element in logical order, but the > >> last in temporal order? In this case I would propose a solution > >> attempt like this: The truth works as a motive, a quest for it, > >> although it is not yet achieved. People (animals, organisms, > >> molecules?) have a feeling, intuition, instinct, internalised law or > >> axiom, that everything has or would have a true representation. This > >> final interpretant, though not realised, does nevertheless do its > >> work for the sign this way here and now. > >> > >> Best, > >> Helmut > >> > >> 18. Mai 2020 um 17:18 Uhr > >> g...@gnusystems.ca > >> wrote: > >> > >> Robert, is it your intention to argue that communication cannot > >> “succeed” _at all_ unless the interpretant of the sign is > >> completely determinate, and identically so for all communicants? > >> > >> Would you likewise say that knowledge is not actual, or real, unless > >> it is absolute and unquestionable? > >> > >> Gary f. > >> > >> FROM: robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> > >> SENT: 18-May-20 03:25 > >> TO: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > >> CC: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > >> SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the > >> classification of signs > >> > >> Jon Alan, List > >> > >> I repeat this debate with you and it leads me to ask you a > >> preliminary question that I should have asked you on September 22, > >> 2018, but I probably did not have very clear ideas 18 months ago. > >> Here it is: what you say this: > >> > >> " The DESTINATE Interpretant is what the Sign is destined to signify > >> at the end of infinite inquiry by an infinite community; i.e., the > >> Final Interpretant"? > >> > >> Because this quote troubles me a little: " In that second part, I > >> call "truth" the PREDESTINATE opinion,17 by which I ought to have > >> meant that which would ultimately prevail if investigation were > >> carried sufficiently far in that particular direction." (The > >> Essential Peirce A Sketch of Logical Critics p.457) > >> > >> It seems to me in complete fact that if this were the case the whole > >> of humanity would be doomed to wait until the end of eternity to > >> succeed in its first communication. Unless an immanent power > >> deposits it in all minds at the moment of the perception of the > >> sign? Should we read "predestinate"? > >> > >> Because there's a perception, isn't there? You will not be able to > >> escape the chronology until the end of time: the signs that actually > >> occur in social life must be taken care of by the theory of signs, > >> shaped to be subjected to analysis, debated ... Etc... Otherwise > >> what are we doing here? > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Robert > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
