Robert, List: I apologize for the apparent lack of clarity in my posts. In this one, I will try to limit myself to addressing your two specific requests as directly as I can.
I have no objection whatsoever to the hexad sequence Od → Oi → S → Id → Ie → Iex where Od = dynamoid object, Oi = immediate object, S = sign, Id = destinate interpretant, Ie = effective interpretant, Iex = explicit interpretant, and → = determines. After all, this is exactly what Peirce states at EP 2:481 (1908). Right before this, he defines "determines" in what I call the *logical* sense--"a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible" and "a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant." In other words, the universe to which any one correlate belongs *constrains *the universe(s) to which the next correlate in the sequence can belong. If the dynamical object is a possible (1ns), then all the subsequent correlates are likewise possibles (1ns). If the explicit interpretant is a necessitant (3ns), then all the previous correlates are likewise necessitants (3ns). If the sign itself is an existent (2ns), then the destinate interpretant is either a possible (1ns) or an existent (2ns). And so on, yielding 28 classes of signs rather than 729. As far as I know, we agree that the dynamoid object is what Peirce elsewhere calls the dynamical object, and that the effective interpretant is what he elsewhere calls the dynamical interpretant. Our disagreement thus seems to be limited to the other two interpretants. For reasons that I have explained, I believe that the destinate interpretant is what Peirce elsewhere calls the final interpretant, and that the explicit interpretant is what he elsewhere calls the immediate interpretant. Just as the genuine (dynamical) object logically determines the degenerate (immediate) object, the genuine (final) interpretant logically determines the degenerate (dynamical) interpretant, which logically determines the doubly degenerate (immediate) interpretant. I define these three interpretants as follows. - The immediate (explicit) interpretant is whatever a sign type *possibly could* signify to someone who possesses the requisite acquaintance with the system of signs to which it belongs. - The dynamical (effective) interpretant is whatever an individual sign token *actually does* signify to someone on an individual occasion. - The final (destinate) interpretant is whatever the sign itself *necessarily would* signify to someone under ideal circumstances, including the ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. Is that helpful? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
