Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [Peirce-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

One correction, the author quoted below and in the attachment is Matthew E.
Moore, not Edward C. Moore.  There are two slightly different versions of
his paper, "Is Synechism Necessary?"  The one presented in 2012 is here
,
and the one published in a 2013 issue of *Cognitio *is here
.  We
discussed it on the List last summer, in a thread that begins here
, which
Gary R. eventually commended
 as "an
example of the best--i.e., most productive--kind of exchange that can occur
on peirce-l."  Hopefully we can restore and maintain that level of
respectful and substantive discourse going forward.

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 9:06 AM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Robert M, Gary F, Jon AS, List
>
> For quotations by Peirce on these issues, see the attached file,
> science.txt.
>
> Also note the last quotation by Edward Moore:
>
> ECM> Peirce has left us, not any kind of final word, but a work in
> progress, one eminently worth carrying on, in the spirit of the one who
> started it.  Which is to say that we must be as resolutely critical, and as
> ruthless in paring away what does not work, as Peirce was at his best.
> [E.C. Moore, "Is Synechism Necessary?"  (2012), p. 12]
>
> In the many debates about what Peirce meant and how we should adopt his
> writings as a basis for our own work, it's essential to remember that his
> ideas were constantly growing. The year 1914 was a stopping point for him,
> but he made many comments about how future reseachers might continue.  I
> agree with Moore's comment, but there is, as always, much more to say.
>
> John
>

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[robert marty]

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 haveclearly 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  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
> , here
> , and
> here .
>
> 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 
> 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 thr

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[gnox]

Helmut, I think what you say here is just about right:

HR: 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.

GF: Peirce says ‘Every man is fully satisfied that there is such a thing as 
truth, or he would not ask any question’ (EP2:240). So that belief is a 
motivation for asking the question, as you say. (I doubt, however, that 
molecules have any such motivations; I think it takes a self-organizing system 
to have motivations in that psychological sense.)

Gary f.

 

From: Helmut Raulien  
Sent: 18-May-20 14:24
To: g...@gnusystems.ca
Cc: 'Peirce-L' 
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the 
classification of signs

 

 

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


-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [Peirce-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[John F. Sowa]

Robert M, Gary F, Jon AS, List

For quotations by Peirce on
these issues, see the attached file, science.txt.
Also note the last
quotation by Edward Moore:
ECM> Peirce has left us, not any kind
of final word, but a work in progress, one eminently worth carrying on, in
the spirit of the one who started it.  Which is to say that we must be as
resolutely critical, and as ruthless in paring away what does not work, as
Peirce was at his best.  [E.C. Moore, "Is Synechism Necessary?" 
(2012), p. 12]
In the many debates about what Peirce meant and how
we should adopt his writings as a basis for our own work, it's essential
to remember that his ideas were constantly growing. The year 1914 was a
stopping point for him, but he made many comments about how future
reseachers might continue.  I agree with Moore's comment, but there is, as
always, much more to say.
John

-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[gnox]

Robert, I asked my question because you wrote:

RM: 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)

GF: You are apparently troubled by this statement of Peirce’s because you 
interpret it as implying that “the whole of humanity would be doomed to wait 
until the end of eternity to succeed in its first communication.” Yet we all 
(including Peirce) agree that this is not the case; and I think this points to 
a problem with your interpretation of Peirce’s statement. I think a better (and 
more charitable) interpretant would recognize that “truth”, as the end of 
inquiry, is an ideal, while the intended outcome of an act of communication is 
that the minds of interpreter and utterer should actually be “fused” in the 
commens for the time being. In other words, what a communicator intends is an 
achievement of something like consensus — something which the communicants, as 
honest inquirers, know very well to be temporary and subject to further 
revision.

When it comes to naming the trichotomy of interpretants, then, the “destinate” 
(or “predestinate”) interpretant cannot be the “intended” or “intentional” 
interpretant. In English usage “destinate” implies “final” and refers to an 
ideal future; a subject’s “intention” is an actual and present state of mind, 
which includes an expectation of what the immediate (short-term) result of the 
subject’s action or utterance will be. For that reason I have to disagree with 
your definition of the “destined interpretant” as “the one that the issuer of 
the sign can expect given his knowledge and mastery of the cultural codes 
currently in force at the very moment of the issuance of the sign.”

By the way, a charitable reading or interpretant is not one that ‘forgives’ the 
utterer for saying something wrong or untrue, it’s the reading that assumes the 
utterer’s intention to be an achievement of consensus, and therefore looks for 
a way to resolve any differences in usage habits between the interpreter and 
the utterer. This is explained in Chapter 2 of my book, 
http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm#Char. I mention this because I’ve seen some 
different (less charitable!) interpretations of “charity” on the list lately — 
not from you, but from others.

Gary f. 

 

From: robert marty  
Sent: 18-May-20 16:22
To: g...@gnusystems.ca; Peirce-L 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification 
of signs

 

Gary , List

 

Surely not and I even think otherwise!   The  destined interpretant is the one 
that the issuer of the sign can expect given his knowledge and mastery of the 
cultural codes currently in force at the very moment of the issuance of the 
sign.  His intention consist of an anticipation of sharing the "commens" with 
the receiver. That is why, in my opinion, Peirce also calls the intended 
interpreter, intentional interpretant, and it is very explicit below:

 

There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of 
the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind 
of the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the 
Cominterpretant,

which is a determination of that mind into which the minds of utterer and 
interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take place. 
This mind may be called the commens. It consists of all that is, and must be, 
well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order that 
the sign in question should fulfill its function. This I proceed to explain. 
(EP p.478)

 

When the sharing is effective, the Cominterpretant has validated it, the 
commens comes out strengthened. If the discrepancies accumulate over time, the 
question of the evolution of the commens will be asked to the society that is 
the guarantor since the commens is consisting above all of signs of law.

 

Areas of the same commens (or almost) for all communicators there are many. For 
example, the word "tree" or a tree drawing in our societies, including among 
the most remote peoples, must benefit from this status.

 

On the reality of knowledge this is a question that seems to me quite far from 
the current debates except to say that knowledge about well-defined 
mathematical objects is indisputable.

 

Le lun. 18 mai 2020 à 17:19, mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> > 
a écrit :

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 mailto:robert.mart..

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[michaelcjm]

Robert, List,
Whilst taking note of Edwina's comment, thank you for this, this is what 
I meant, allowing that my use of 'mind' is individual based, hence what 
is being discussed is the pooled product of minds.  The components of 
what we are talking about are in relation to what we are talking about.  
'Pooled' is my dialect for Peirce's 'fused'.  I would describe the 
concepts as getting fused but that's just me.  Intersecting allusions by 
speakers and listeners together, build up signification.
Is the predestinate interpretant, the hypothesis that we converge 
towards when inference has increased and falsification has decreased?

Michael

On 2020-05-18 23:00, robert marty wrote:


I am sorry but if you are begining with " If commens means the sum
at any time of whatever everybody happens to come up with,..." I am
obliged, on Peirce's list to give the floor to peirce on this subject
:
" There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of
the mind of the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a
determination of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational
Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant, which is a determination of
that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be
fused in order that any communication should take place. This mind may
be called the commens. It consists of all that is, and must be, well
understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order
that the sign in question should fulfill its function. This I proceed
to explain.No object can be denoted unless it be put into relation to
the object of the commens. A man, tramping along a weary and solitary
road, meets an individual of strange mien, who says, "There was a fire
in Megara." If this should happen in the Middle United States, there
might very likely be some village in the neighborhood called Megara.
Or it may refer to one of the ancient cities of Megara, or to some
romance. And the time is wholly indefinite. In short,nothing at all is
conveyed, until the person addressed asks, "Where?"—"Oh about half a
mile along there" to whence he came. "And when?" "As I
passed." Now an item of information has been conveyed, because it has
been stated relatively to a well-understood common experience. Thus
the Form conveyed is always a determination of the dynamical object of
the commind. By the way, the dynamical object does not mean something
out of the mind. It means something forced upon the mind in
perception, but including more than perception reveals. It is an
object of actual Experience." (EP p.478)
Best regards
Robert

Le lun. 18 mai 2020 à 23:44,  a écrit :


Jerry R., List,

To act means to get on with life.  If commens means the sum at any
time
of whatever everybody happens to come up with, we can each develop
whatever aims we want, at any time, as we go along.

From your wording here do you seem to be allowing for this.

I therefore don't quite get why you earlier remarked you didn't
believe
what I took most of the others as edging towards (which I tried to
expand on - as far as I understood - in my response of a few minutes

ago).

Michael M., linguist, UK

On 2020-05-18 21:25, Jerry Rhee wrote:


Dear Cecile, list,

Why not?

I mean, isn’t belief supposedly _that_ upon which one is

prepared to

act?

What, then, is _that_ belief?

Let us take our situation, then.

We have utterers and interpreters (and presumably a commens
somewhere).

And if we take Peirce at his word, then the only moral evil is not

to

have an ultimate aim.  So where is it?  What is our ultimate aim?

From what I see, that aim is nebulous.

And since we are all Peirceans and we have continued to

investigate

such things,

then it must be Peirce’s intention for us to argue over such

things

until we come to an agreement.  But that end comes at the end, not

at

the beginning.

Best,

Jerry R

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[robert marty]

  I am sorry but if you are begining with " If commens means the sum at any
time of whatever everybody happens to come up with,..." I am obliged, on
Peirce's list to give the floor to peirce on this subject :
" There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the
mind of the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination
of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or
say the Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that mind into which
the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any
communication should take place. This mind may be called the commens. It
consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and
interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question should
fulfill its function. This I proceed to explain.
No object can be denoted unless it be put into relation to the object of
the commens. A man, tramping along a weary and solitary road, meets an
individual of strange mien, who says, "There was a fire in Megara." If this
should happen in the Middle United States, there might very likely be some
village in the neighborhood called Megara. Or it may refer to one of the
ancient cities of Megara, or to some romance. And the time is wholly
indefinite. In short,nothing at all is conveyed, until the person addressed
asks, "Where?"—"Oh about half a mile along there" pointing to whence he
came. "And when?" "As I passed." Now an item of information has been
conveyed, because it has been stated relatively to a well-understood common
experience. Thus the Form conveyed is always a determination of the
dynamical object of the commind. By the way, the dynamical object does not
mean something out of the mind. It means something forced upon the mind in
perception, but including more than perception reveals. It is an object of
actual Experience." (EP p.478)
Best regards
Robert

Le lun. 18 mai 2020 à 23:44,  a écrit :

> Jerry R., List,
>
> To act means to get on with life.  If commens means the sum at any time
> of whatever everybody happens to come up with, we can each develop
> whatever aims we want, at any time, as we go along.
>
>  From your wording here do you seem to be allowing for this.
>
> I therefore don't quite get why you earlier remarked you didn't believe
> what I took most of the others as edging towards (which I tried to
> expand on - as far as I understood - in my response of a few minutes
> ago).
>
> Michael M., linguist, UK
>
> On 2020-05-18 21:25, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
> > Dear Cecile, list,
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > I mean, isn’t belief supposedly _that_ upon which one is prepared to
> > act?
> >
> > What, then, is _that_ belief?
> >
> > Let us take our situation, then.
> >
> > We have utterers and interpreters (and presumably a commens
> > somewhere).
> >
> > And if we take Peirce at his word, then the only moral evil is not to
> > have an ultimate aim.  So where is it?  What is our ultimate aim?
> >
> > From what I see, that aim is nebulous.
> >
> > And since we are all Peirceans and we have continued to investigate
> > such things,
> >
> > then it must be Peirce’s intention for us to argue over such things
> > until we come to an agreement.  But that end comes at the end, not at
> > the beginning.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jerry R
> >
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:04 PM Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed...
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >> DE: "Jerry Rhee" 
> >> À: "Helmut Raulien" 
> >> CC: "Gary Fuhrman" , "peirce-l"
> >> 
> >> 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
>

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[michaelcjm]

Jerry, it's clear to me the passage quoted is coming from the realm of 
interpreting.  The speaker might plan to engage others' reflexes but I 
think the speaker also on engaging their intellectual interpreting; it's 
for us each to override or complement our reflexes with our 
interpreting, adding lots of other information, and then choose what to 
make of it.  Is this what you meant?


I'm still working on "predestinate" per se.

I thought of pragmatism/pragmaticism as alow-key thing we do all the 
time in living.


Michael

On 2020-05-18 22:39, Jerry Rhee wrote:


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  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

-
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 .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List - as I see it, this question was specifically asked by Robert
Marty of Jon Alan Schmidt -- a question asking about his specific
views on the Interpretants - and I think it has to be first, replied
to by Jon Alan Schmidt!

I think it's a legitimate question - and all we can do is wait for
the reply by JAS to Robert.

Edwina
 >> 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[michaelcjm]

Jerry R., List,

To act means to get on with life.  If commens means the sum at any time 
of whatever everybody happens to come up with, we can each develop 
whatever aims we want, at any time, as we go along.


From your wording here do you seem to be allowing for this.

I therefore don't quite get why you earlier remarked you didn't believe 
what I took most of the others as edging towards (which I tried to 
expand on - as far as I understood - in my response of a few minutes 
ago).


Michael M., linguist, UK

On 2020-05-18 21:25, Jerry Rhee wrote:


Dear Cecile, list,

Why not?

I mean, isn’t belief supposedly _that_ upon which one is prepared to
act?

What, then, is _that_ belief?

Let us take our situation, then.

We have utterers and interpreters (and presumably a commens
somewhere).

And if we take Peirce at his word, then the only moral evil is not to
have an ultimate aim.  So where is it?  What is our ultimate aim?

From what I see, that aim is nebulous.

And since we are all Peirceans and we have continued to investigate
such things,

then it must be Peirce’s intention for us to argue over such things
until we come to an agreement.  But that end comes at the end, not at
the beginning.

Best,

Jerry R

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:04 PM Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela
 wrote:


Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed...

-

DE: "Jerry Rhee" 
À: "Helmut Raulien" 
CC: "Gary Fuhrman" , "peirce-l"

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

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Jerry Rhee]

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  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" 
> > À: "Helmut Raulien" 
> > CC: "Gary Fuhrman" , "peirce-l"
> > 
> > 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 
> > 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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[michaelcjm]

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" 
À: "Helmut Raulien" 
CC: "Gary Fuhrman" , "peirce-l"

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 
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 
SENT: 18-May-20 03:25
TO: Jon Alan Schmidt 
CC: Peirce-L 
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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear Cecile, list,



Why not?

I mean, isn’t belief supposedly *that* upon which one is prepared to act?

What, then, is *that* belief?



Let us take our situation, then.

We have utterers and interpreters (and presumably a commens somewhere).

And if we take Peirce at his word, then the only moral evil is not to have
an ultimate aim.  So where is it?  What is our ultimate aim?



From what I see, that aim is nebulous.



And since we are all Peirceans and we have continued to investigate such
things,

then it must be Peirce’s intention for us to argue over such things until
we come to an agreement.  But that end comes at the end, not at the
beginning.



Best,

Jerry R

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:04 PM Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela <
cecile.coscullu...@univ-pau.fr> wrote:

> Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed...
>
> --
> *De: *"Jerry Rhee" 
> *À: *"Helmut Raulien" 
> *Cc: *"Gary Fuhrman" , "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  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 
>> *Sent:* 18-May-20 03:25
>> *To:* Jon Alan Schmidt 
>> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
>> *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 .
>>
>
>
> [Fichier texte:message-footer.txt]
>

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[robert marty]

Gary , List


Surely not and I even think otherwise!   The  destined interpretant is the
one that the issuer of the sign can expect given his knowledge and mastery
of the cultural codes currently in force at the very moment of the issuance
of the sign.  His intention consist of an anticipation of sharing the
"commens" with the receiver. That is why, in my opinion, Peirce also calls
the intended interpreter, intentional interpretant, and it is very explicit
below:



*There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the
mind of the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination
of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or
say the Cominterpretant,*

*which is a determination of that mind into which the minds of utterer and
interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take
place. This mind may be called the commens. It consists of all that is, and
must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in
order that the sign in question should fulfill its function. **This I
proceed to explain. (EP p.478)*


When the sharing is effective, the Cominterpretant has validated it, the
commens comes out strengthened. If the discrepancies accumulate over time,
the question of the evolution of the commens will be asked to the society
that is the guarantor since the commens is consisting above all of signs of
law.



Areas of the same commens (or almost) for all communicators there are many.
For example, the word "tree" or a tree drawing in our societies, including
among the most remote peoples, must benefit from this status.


On the reality of knowledge this is a question that seems to me quite far
from the current debates except to say that knowledge about well-defined
mathematical objects is indisputable.

Le lun. 18 mai 2020 à 17:19,  a écrit :

> 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 
> *Sent:* 18-May-20 03:25
> *To:* Jon Alan Schmidt 
> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
> *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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela]

Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed... 


De: "Jerry Rhee"  
À: "Helmut Raulien"  
Cc: "Gary Fuhrman" , "peirce-l"  
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 < [ mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de | 
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 
[ mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca | 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 < [ mailto:robert.mart...@gmail.com | 
robert.mart...@gmail.com ] > 
Sent: 18-May-20 03:25 
To: Jon Alan Schmidt < [ mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com | 
jonalanschm...@gmail.com ] > 
Cc: Peirce-L < [ mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu | 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 [ 
mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu | peirce-L@list.iupui.edu ] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, 
send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [ mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu | 
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 | 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm ] . 





[Fichier texte:message-footer.txt] 

-
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 .

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Jerry Rhee]

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  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 
> *Sent:* 18-May-20 03:25
> *To:* Jon Alan Schmidt 
> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
> *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 .
>

-
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 .

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Helmut Raulien]

 


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 
Sent: 18-May-20 03:25
To: Jon Alan Schmidt 
Cc: Peirce-L 
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 .





-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[gnox]

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  
Sent: 18-May-20 03:25
To: Jon Alan Schmidt 
Cc: Peirce-L 
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[robert marty]

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

Le dim. 17 mai 2020 à 02:14, Jon Alan Schmidt  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
> , here
> , and
> here .
>
> 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 
> 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 immedi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Jon:

> On May 16, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  
> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I concur with these assertions.
The proof theory of chemistry emerges from the necessity of a coherent set of 
final interpretants that align the molecular weights with the molecular formula 
and molecular structures with the existential signs (sin-signs).  Bedrocks 
manifest themselves.

Cheers

Jerry
-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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
, here
, and here
.

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 
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  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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[robert marty]

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  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
>
>
>
> On Sat 16/05/20 12:18 PM , robert marty robert.mart...@gmail.com sent:
>
> The general clash over the role of mathematics in knowledge creation was
> preceded by a debate between Jon Alan and myself. It was a false debate
> because Jon Alan only paraphrased Peirce, I'll show it.
> I begin with a short history that will show that the state of the
> relationship between proponents of methods described as empirical and those
> of mathematical methods is not good.  In most likely the embodiement of the
> former by the latter often experienced as a domination while it is an
> obligatory passage for the increase of knowledge.  We will check it in a
> particular case, without excessive passion  even if there will be no
> charity ...
>
> JAS   > (07/05)
> "Unfortunately I am not adept enough with mathematical category theory to
> make heads or tails of Robert's exposition below.  It still seems to me
> that "category" means something quite different in that context than it
> does for Peirce when he is writing about 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.  Am I wrong?
> If so, I would appreciate some further explanation of how they relate to
> each other."
>
> RM   > (07/05)
>
> I create for him a short post that I finally posted on the web:
> https://www.academia.edu/42974040/Build_the_lattice_of_the_10_classes_of_signs_in_one_lesson
>
> Here's his polite answer... and treacherous ...
>
> JAS   > (08/05)
>
> "I sincerely appreciate the additional attempt to explain below, but I am
> afraid that I still cannot detect an answer despite reading it several
> times, because it remains couched entirely in the unfamiliar vocabulary of
> mathematical category theory--"morphism," "composition," "functor,"
> "natural transformation," etc.  I do not have the requisite acquaintance
> with that particular system of signs to interpret it successfully".
>
> RM  > It is clear: for JAS a vocabulary that is not familiar to him can
> only produce a particular system of signs that he cannot decipher (a bit
> like hieroglyphics before Champollion). Yet I was exhausted to say that the
> axiomatized objects I used benefited of the usual universality of
> mathematics in the sense that Peirce means precisely:
>
> CSP  > (classifications of sciences)
> - mathematics, the study of ideal constructions without reference to
> their real existence,
>  -empirics, the study of phenomena with the purpose of identifying their
> forms w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[a . breemen]

Robert,

A clear statement, thanks. I have but one remark. You wrote:

RM: I begin with a short history that will show that the state of the 
relationship between proponents of methods described as empirical and those of 
mathematical methods is not good.

--

You go on to describe your discussion with JAS. Frankly, I do not think that 
that discussion is of any showing value for the discussion between emperical 
and mathematical oriented semioticians. References outside the corpus of Peirce 
not being made.

That does not mean that I disagree with your statement about the types of 
semioticians. Of course written from the other side of the fence. I think this 
only gets better if both types have converging interests.

Best,

Auke


Op 16 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef robert marty : The 
general clash over the role of mathematics in knowledge creation was preceded 
by a debate between Jon Alan and myself. It was a false debate because Jon Alan 
only paraphrased Peirce, I'll show it.

I begin with a short history that will show that the state of the relationship 
between proponents of methods described as empirical and those of mathematical 
methods is not good.  In most likely the embodiement of the former by the 
latter often experienced as a domination while it is an obligatory passage for 
the increase of knowledge.  We will check it in a particular case, without 
excessive passion  even if there will be no charity ...

JAS   > (07/05)
"Unfortunately I am not adept enough with mathematical category theory to make 
heads or tails of Robert's exposition below.  It still seems to me that 
"category" means something quite different in that context than it does for 
Peirce when he is writing about 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.  Am I wrong?  If so, I would 
appreciate some further explanation of how they relate to each other."

RM   > (07/05)

I create for him a short post that I finally posted on the web: 
https://www.academia.edu/42974040/Build_the_lattice_of_the_10_classes_of_signs_in_one_lesson
 
https://www.academia.edu/42974040/Build_the_lattice_of_the_10_classes_of_signs_in_one_lesson

Here's his polite answer... and treacherous ...

JAS   > (08/05)

"I sincerely appreciate the additional attempt to explain below, but I am 
afraid that I still cannot detect an answer despite reading it several times, 
because it remains couched entirely in the unfamiliar vocabulary of 
mathematical category theory--"morphism," "composition," "functor," "natural 
transformation," etc.  I do not have the requisite acquaintance with that 
particular system of signs to interpret it successfully".

RM  > It is clear: for JAS a vocabulary that is not familiar to him can only 
produce a particular system of signs that he cannot decipher (a bit like 
hieroglyphics before Champollion). Yet I was exhausted to say that the 
axiomatized objects I used benefited of the usual universality of mathematics 
in the sense that Peirce means precisely:

CSP  > (classifications of sciences)
- mathematics, the study of ideal constructions without reference to their real 
existence, 
 -empirics, the study of phenomena with the purpose of identifying their forms 
with those mathematics has studied, 
 - Pragmatics, the study of how we ought to behave in the ligth of the truths 
of empirics." [C.S. Peirce, 1976: NEM , vol.III.2 , 1122]

What he notes again in another text:

1.   Mathematics, which frames and studies the consequences of hypotheses 
without concerning itself about whether there is anything in nature analogous 
to its hypotheses or not. [C.S. Peirce, 1976: NEM , vol. IV, 228]

Moreover, the rest is eloquent on Peirce's opinion about the relationship of 
philosophers with mathematics ... I can provide it on request ...

Everyone will understand that I did not appreciate that the work I have been 
doing for 45 years is relegated to the particular systems ... I find it 
treacherous  to use one's incapacity (and de facto any supposed individual or 
collective incapacity outside) to marginalize a scientific practice. This 
debate is also open and I have spoken ... In my opinion what I am trying to do 
now is to bring it down in the field of semiotics. It is long and difficult but 
it must be conducted with all the necessary critical sense and restraint, i.e. 
with "generosity and no charity" ...

I'm going to put it all back in place since I now have the information to 
analyze Jon Allan's system which opens a singular fight between this  S → Od-S 
→ S-If chain dated 1903 and the mathematical object "functor" that formalizes 
the chain of determinations O à S à I dated 1905 and sqq...

Indeed he writes in an answer:

JAS   > (12/05)

"Hence the logical order of determination is S → Od-S → S-If, which we use to 
obtain the familiar ten classes of signs.

Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of signs can be 
determined (in a different sense) by other signs.  In fact, only a symbolic 
sign can determine a further sign as i

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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
 On Sat 16/05/20 12:18 PM , robert marty robert.mart...@gmail.com
sent:
The general clash over the role of mathematics in knowledge creation
was preceded by a debate between Jon Alan and myself. It was a false
debate because Jon Alan only paraphrased Peirce, I'll show it.
 I begin with a short history that will show that the state of the
relationship between proponents of methods described as empirical and
those of mathematical methods is not good.  In most likely the
embodiement of the former by the latter often experienced as a
domination while it is an obligatory passage for the increase of
knowledge.  We will check it in a particular case, without excessive
passion  even if there will be no charity ... 

JAS   > (07/05)
 "Unfortunately I am not adept enough with mathematical category
theory to make heads or tails of Robert's exposition below.  It still
seems to me that "category" means something quite different in that
context than it does for Peirce when he is writing about 1ns, 2ns,
and 3ns.  Am I wrong?  If so, I would appreciate some further
explanation of how they relate to each other." 

RM   > (07/05) 

I create for him a short post that I finally posted on the web:
https://www.academia.edu/42974040/Build_the_lattice_of_the_10_classes_of_signs_in_one_lesson


Here's his polite answer... and treacherous ... 

JAS   > (08/05) 

"I sincerely appreciate the additional attempt to explain below, but
I am afraid that I still cannot detect an answer despite reading it
several times, because it remains couched entirely in the unfamiliar
vocabulary of mathematical category theory--"morphism,"
"composition," "functor," "natural transformation," etc.  I do not
have the requisite acquaintance with that particular system of signs
to interpret it successfully". 

RM  > It is clear: for JAS a vocabulary that is not familiar to him
can only produce a particular system of signs that he cannot decipher
(a bit like hieroglyphics before Champollion). Yet I was exhausted to
say that the axiomatized objects I used benefited of the usual
universality of mathematics in the sense that Peirce means precisely:


CSP  > (classifications of sciences)
 - mathematics, the study of ideal constructions without reference to
their real existence,  
  -empirics, the study of phenomena with the purpose of identifying
their forms with those mathematics has studied,  
  - Pragmatics, the study of how we ought to behave in the ligth of
the truths of empirics." [C.S. Peirce, 1976: NEM , vol.III.2 , 1122] 

What he notes again in another text: 

1.   Mathematics, which frames and studies the consequences of
hypotheses without concerning itself about whether there is anything
in nature analogous to its hypotheses or not. [C.S. Peirce, 1976: NEM
, vol. IV, 228] 

Moreover, the rest is eloquent on Peirce's opinion about the
relationship of philosophers with mathematics ... I can provide it on
request ... 

Everyone will understand that I did not appreciate that the work I
have been doing for 45 years is relegated to the particular systems
... I find it treacherous  to use one's incapacity (and de facto any
supposed individual or collective incapacity outside) to marginalize
a scientific practice. This debate is also open and I have spoken ...
In my opinion what I am trying to do now is to bring it down in the
field of semiotics. It is long and difficult but it must be conducted
with all the necessary critical sense and restraint, i.e. with
"generosity and no charity" ... 

I'm going to put it all back in place since I now have the
information to analyze Jon Allan's system which opens a singular
fight between this  S → Od-S → S-If chain dated 1903 and the
mathematical object "functor" that formalizes the chain of
determinations O à S à I dated 1905 and sqq... 

Indeed he writes in an answer: 

JAS   > (12/05) 

"Hence the logical order of determination is S → Od-S → S-If,
which we use to obtain the familiar ten classes of signs. 

Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of
signs can be determined (in a different sense) by other signs.  In
fact, only a symbolic sign can determine a further sign as its
dynamical interpretant.  An indexical sign can only produce an
exertion or a feeling, and an iconic sign can only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

[Mike Bergman]

Thank you, Robert. This indeed is how the game should be played.

Mike

On 5/16/2020 11:18 AM, robert marty wrote:


The general clash over the role of mathematics in knowledge creation 
was preceded by a debate between Jon Alan and myself. It was a false 
debate because Jon Alan only paraphrased Peirce, I'll show it.
I begin with a short history that will show that the state of the 
relationship between proponents of methods described as empirical and 
those of mathematical methods is not good.  In most likely the 
embodiement of the former by the latter often experienced as a 
domination while it is an obligatory passage for the increase of 
knowledge. We will check it in a particular case, without excessive 
passion  even if there will be no charity ...


JAS   > (07/05)
"Unfortunately I am not adept enough with mathematical category theory 
to make heads or tails of Robert's exposition below.  It still seems 
to me that "category" means something quite different in that context 
than it does for Peirce when he is writing about 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.  
Am I wrong?  If so, I would appreciate some further explanation of how 
they relate to each other."


RM > (07/05)

I create for him a short post that I finally posted on the 
web:https://www.academia.edu/42974040/Build_the_lattice_of_the_10_classes_of_signs_in_one_lesson


Here's his polite answer... and treacherous ...

JAS   > (08/05)

"I sincerely appreciate the additional attempt to explain below, but I 
am afraid that I still cannot detect an answer despite reading it 
several times, because it remains couched entirely in the unfamiliar 
vocabulary of mathematical category theory--"morphism," "composition," 
"functor," "natural transformation," etc.  I do not have the requisite 
acquaintance with that *particular system* *of signs* to interpret it 
successfully".


RM  > It is clear: for JAS a vocabulary that is not familiar to him 
can only produce *a particular system of signs* that he cannot 
decipher (a bit like hieroglyphics before Champollion). Yet I was 
exhausted to say that the axiomatized objects I used benefited of the 
usual universality of mathematics in the sense that Peirce means 
precisely:


CSP  > (classifications of sciences)
- mathematics, the study *of ideal constructions* without reference to 
their real existence,
 -empirics, the study of phenomena with the purpose of identifying 
their forms with those mathematics has studied,
 - Pragmatics, the study of how we ought to behave in the ligth of the 
truths of empirics." [C.S. Peirce, 1976: NEM , vol.III.2 , 1122]


What he notes again in another text:

1.Mathematics, which frames and studies the consequences of hypotheses 
without concerning itself about whether there is anything in nature 
analogous to its hypotheses or not. [C.S. Peirce, 1976: NEM , vol. IV, 
228]


Moreover, the rest is eloquent on Peirce's opinion about the 
relationship of philosophers with mathematics ... I can provide it on 
request ...


Everyone will understand that I did not appreciate that the work I 
have been doing for 45 years is relegated to the particular systems 
... I find it *treacherous * to use one's incapacity (and de facto any 
supposed individual or collective incapacity outside) to marginalize a 
scientific practice. This debate is also open and I have spoken ... In 
my opinion what I am trying to do now is to bring it down in the field 
of semiotics. It is long and difficult but it must be conducted with 
all the necessary critical sense and restraint, i.e. with "generosity 
and no charity" ...


I'm going to put it all back in place since I now have the information 
to analyze Jon Allan's system which opens a singular fight between 
this S → Od-S → S-Ifchain dated 1903 and the mathematical object 
"functor" that formalizes the chain of determinations OàSàI dated 1905 
and sqq...


Indeed he writes in an answer:

JAS   > (12/05)

"Hence the logical order of determination is S → Od-S → S-If, which we 
use to obtain the familiar ten classes of signs.


Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of 
signs can be determined *(in a different sense)* by other signs. In 
fact, only a symbolic sign can determine a further sign as its 
dynamical interpretant.  An indexical sign can only produce an 
exertion or a feeling, and an iconic sign can only produce a feeling.


It also has nothing whatsoever to do with which classes of signs 
are involved in other signs.  Every actual replica of a legisign is a 
sinsign that possesses qualisigns.  Every symbolic sign involves 
indexical and iconic signs, and every indexical sign involves iconic 
signs.  Every argument involves dicisigns and rhemes, and every 
dicisign involves rhemes."


RM  > I noted immediately that he wrote that the sign determined his 
own determination, a strange thing difficult to attribute to Peirce 
but he gives us incomprehensible details about what some others do in 
a different sense ...  and it states some t