Jon Alan, Gary F., List
I agree for only one place for "destinate" but none for "predestinate" ,
otherwise I'm sure you would have found it and brandished it like a trophy
... 😉
Now I have to admit that I can't figure out what you say is clear so much
you're making little effort in the presentation to be precisely clear. You
produce such a fog of quotations, sentences that say what a thing is mixed
with what it is not, that a logical order in ideal circumstances is not
chronological order in other circumstances, ... that I declare myself
incapable in the current state of our exchanges to take a critical look at
your statement. I would like to quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
"*On pourrait, pour élaguer peu les tortillages et les amphigouris, obliger
tout harangueur à énoncer au commencement de son discours la proposition
qu'il veut faire".*(J.J. Rousseau, Le Gouvernement de Pologne.)
a sentence with two old terms untranslatable but you guess criticisms that
I like which means that it would "*require any speaker to state at the
beginning of his speech the proposal he wishes to make*"... It's an effort
I made to look at what was behind your Sà(S-Od) à (S-If) sequence and I
think I made it clear, which took me a long time.
Also I would be very obliged to expose you
· what sequence you object exactly to the sequence:
Od à Oi à S à Id à Ie à Iex (LW December 23 1908) ?
(understanding that this sequence must be understood with the
definitions I have clearly stated for each of its elements including the
arrows)
· and of course, for each of its elements, the exact definition you
give of them, including the arrows.
Otherwise we will leave it by force of things…
In the meantime,
Well cordially to you
Robert
Le dim. 17 mai 2020 à 02:14, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Robert, Edwina, List:
>
> I would simply like to offer three brief clarifications of my own views,
> and leave it at that.
>
> First, the object and interpretant in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy evidently
> correspond to the *dynamical *object and *final *interpretant in his
> later taxonomies, because he assigns the same names to the trichotomies for
> their relations with the sign--icon/index/symbol and
> rheme/dicisign/argument, although the latter eventually becomes
> seme/pheme/delome.
>
> Second, I have never suggested that the final interpretant "functions
> BEFORE" the immediate and dynamical interpretants. What I have argued is
> that the final interpretant *logically determines* the dynamical
> interpretant, such that a sign that *would* produce a feeling under ideal
> circumstances can only *actually *produce a feeling, while only a sign
> that *would *produce a further sign under ideal circumstances can *actually
> *produce a further sign. Moreover, I have explicitly and repeatedly
> denied that this has anything whatsoever to do with the *temporal *sequence
> of these interpretants.
>
> Third, consistent with this assessment, I believe that the destinate or
> intended interpretant corresponds to the final interpretant, while the
> explicit interpretant corresponds to the immediate interpretant. I have
> explained my reasoning for these assignments here
> <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-09/msg00204.html>, here
> <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00024.html>, and
> here <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00173.html>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Edwina, List
>>
>> I first clarify that I think I agree with most people on the list that
>> the hexadic sign is a refinement of the triadic sign and therefore
>> naturally responds to more precise ones. It is a difficult exercise to do
>> an analysis of a concrete case.
>>
>> As far as the question of interpretants is concerned, you know that when
>> mathematical objects are given they don't care what you put in the "place
>> marks". But I will not avoid your question because I have already had
>> debates on this, especially at the early days of the list. I have probably
>> moved on this issue.
>>
>> But here's what I think today: I prefer the hexad Od à Oi à S à Id à Ie à
>> Iex (LW December 23 1908) for the reasons concerning Id, the intended
>> interpretant, that for me is induced by the Od influencing the mind across
>> the S that it determines .
>>
>> In terms of communication it would be the interpretation on which the
>> issuer of a sign can count in a society where cultural codes are fixed
>> (temporarily but it is in a long time) ; intended taking with the value of
>> "hoped".
>>
>> Ie the effective interpretant is clearly the actual effect obtained that
>> is not is necessarily the same (and therefore one see the possibilities of
>> collective evolution through the accumulated individuals) and the explicit
>> Interpretant is this that is explicitly implemented when receiver he
>> deliberated (a very short moment certainly) under the pressure of Id
>> confronted with his own interpretation Ie.
>>
>> I see no obstacle to calling them ii, Id and If respectively, as of
>> course they are given the same meaning because, in my opinion, there is no
>> semantic barrier to making these identifications. The immediate Ii what is
>> already inscribed in the mind by the social use of inherited signs and it
>> can therefore be intended by simple use of internalized social codes... as
>> far as Id and If is concerned there is no problem.
>>
>> So it is possible that JAS also sees it as such ... one should ask him
>> the question ...
>>
>> It's still a question to be debated without excessive passion!
>> Le sam. 16 mai 2020 à 18:48, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Robert - thank you for this clarity -of-the-game.
>>>
>>> I have one question. You use both O-S-I and Od-S-If in your outline.
>>>
>>> I think that the more intricate use of Od and If really belong to
>>> another discussion. For example, JAS has been introducing the idea that If
>>> functions BEFORE the II and DI - a concept which I reject. I'm not sure if
>>> you share the same opinion on this as JAS - but- I would appreciate
>>> clarification.
>>>
>>> Again - thank you for your posts.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>
-----------------------------
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 .
