Robert, List: I only have more questions at this point. If you prefer to answer any or all of them off-List, that would be fine with me.
Is it your view that "determines" is *always *a synonym for "efficiently causes"? If so, why would it entail that the universe to which any one correlate belongs constrains the universe(s) to which the next correlate in the sequence can belong? If I may ask, why do you suspect a connection between being a "stranger to the final causes" and your atheism? On what basis do you believe that the destinate, effective, and explicit interpretants are all *actual *effects? Do you likewise understand the other three correlates of the hexad to be actual? Please forgive the repetition, but what is "destinate" about the destinate interpretant as you define it? And what is "explicit" about the explicit interpretant as you define it? Finally, how do you relate your podium diagram to the destinate, effective, and explicit interpretants? Which one do you see as the genuine interpretant (3), which is degenerate (2/3), and which is doubly degenerate (1/2/3)? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:56 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon Alan, List > > To answer your questions I found it more convenient to answer in your > message, you'll excuse me... > > I am glad to learn that I was successful in clarifying my position for > you. Thanks for also spelling out yours, although I still have some > theoretical comments and questions before we can start trying to discuss > specific examples. > > > > First, you describe the succession of the destinate, effective, and > explicit interpretants as a "process of interpretation." To me, this > suggests a *temporal *sequence rather than a *logical *sequence, and thus > *efficient *causation rather than *final *causation. In my view, when we > say that a sign "determines" a subject's mind "to a feeling, to an > exertion, or to a Sign" (CP 4.536, 1906), this is a *different *sense of > "determines" than when Peirce states that the sign itself "determines the > Destinate Interpretant, which determines the Effective Interpretant, which > determines the Explicit Interpretant" (EP 2:481, 1908). Do you disagree? > > > > I disagree... the only efficient causations interest me ... I'm totally > stranger to the final causes which is probably related to my atheism … > > > > Second, how do you relate the destinate, effective, and explicit > interpretants to the immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants? It > seems like you consider the destinate, effective, and explicit > interpretants to be three different *actual *effects of a single sign on > a single subject. Is that correct? > > > > Yes that's right, successive effects over time but very often reflexes so > much they are deeply inscribed in the praxis of subjects > > > > For me, this would make them all *dynamical *interpretants, because I > understand the immediate interpretant as the range of *possible *effects > of the sign (feelings/exertions/signs) and the final interpretant as the > conditionally *necessary* effect of the sign (habit or habit-change). > > > > The notion of change of habit is for me the psychological version of the > modification of the commens (individual habit/collective habit) > > > > Third, I am curious about the basis for your particular definitions of the > destinate, effective, and explicit interpretants. Are they derived from > certain passages in Peirce's writings, developed from your own analyses > over the years, or a combination of these? What is "destinate" about the > determination of each subject's mind by his/her perception of the sign as > his/her "abstract subjective theory"? What is "explicit" about "the result > of this confrontation" as either retaining or modifying that theory? > > > > No there is conflict in the subject between the abstract subjective theory > received from the utterer, which forces it into the moment of perception > (action/reaction, see definitions of the sign with active/passive) > > > > Finally, please note that I *do not* "place the subject (someone) from > the beginning in ideal circumstances." Again, I hold that the *final > *interpretant > is the effect that the sign *would *have under ideal circumstances, which > may or may not ever be realized, rather than an effect that the sign > *does* have on an individual subject on a particular occasion. The > latter is always a *dynamical *interpretant, and it can be different for > different subjects who have different degrees of sign system acquaintance, > different collateral experience/observation, and different habits of > interpretation. Do you disagree with this distinction? > > > > I disagree otherwise I would not have written my previous message in the > same way! > > > 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
