<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"></span><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">Jon Alan, list</span><br> <br> <span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12px"><span style="font-size:16px">JAS : "</span> </span><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">How might we restate this in accordance with Peirce's later terminology of multiple Objects and Interpretants? "<br> <br> RM : It is not only a new terminology but mostly another extended definition of the sign with 6 constituents (that I named hexadic sign). The definition by Peirce is included here : </span><br> <br> <em>"It is evident that a possible can determine nothing but a Possible, it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant. Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since the <strong>Dynamoid Object</strong> determines the <strong>Immediate Object</strong>, which determines the <strong>Sign </strong>itself, which determines the <strong>Destinate Interpretant</strong> which determines the <strong>Effective Interpret</strong>ant which determines the<strong> Explicit</strong> <strong>Interpretant</strong> the six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they would if they were independent, only yield 28 classes ..." (Letter to Lady Welby, December 23, 1908) You obtains the correspondant lattice (typing 6 in the box) at this URL : </em><a href="http://patrick-benazet.chez-alice.fr/lattices/";>http://patrick-benazet.chez-alice.fr/lattices/</a><br> <br> My transcription <strong>: </strong>Od----->Oi----->S------>Ii------>Id----->If (I dont debate here on the denominations, If is the classical final interpretant) , the arrow are logical presuppositions (according to the Frege's criterion implicitly verified by the first sentence of the quote)<br> <br> JAS : "<span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">According to the quote, you write a </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">Replica</em><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">, which is interpreted as a </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">Sign </em><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">of "an instance of that concept," which is its </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">Object</em><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">. More specifically, I suggest (tentatively) that this is the individual </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">Dynamic </em><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">Object--the instance of the concept that you, as the Utterer, have in mind upon writing the Replica--while the concept itself, as the collection or continuum of all such instances, is the </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">General</em><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px"> Object."<br> <br> RM : Where is the immediate object ? Remember : <em><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">"</span></em></span><em><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">In point of fact, we do find that the immediate object and emotional interpretant correspond, both being apprehensions, or are "subjective"; both, too, pertain to all signs without exception. The real object and energetic interpretant also correspond, both being real facts or things. But to our surprise, we find that the logical interpretant does not correspond with any kind of object. This defect of correspondance between object and interpretant must be rooted in the essential difference there is between the nature of an object and that of an interpretant; which difference is that former antecedes while the latter succeeds. The logical interpretant must, therefore, be in a relatively future tense.(MS 318-f)</span></span></em><br> <br> Nevertheless, according to the relationships between the classes of hexadic signs I can answer that if the mode of being of Od is Thirdness (is the case of "freedom") then the mode of being of Oi is Thirdness or Secondness or Firstness. Consequently there is possibility of instances in the first case and the modes of beings of the possibles classes of signs are <br> 3---->3---->X---->Y----->Z---->T with the values of X,Y,Z,T being 3 or 2 or 1 and X>=Y>=Z>=T ( see the lattice for an exhaustive list. ). No problem for continue with instances wich concerns only the pair relationned 3---->3 (the General Objet as Peircean commens connected with the particular concept of "freedom" of the Utterer) and we have the following categorial possibilities of représentation of this pair : 2---->2, 2--->1, 1---->1 that is to say two Secondnesses connected (two concretes représentations, e.g statue of Liberty and one graphism) ; or one Secondness connected with one Firstness (e.g statue of Liberty and one feeling of freedom) or finally two Firstnesses connected (two feelings of freedom). <br> <br> <span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">JAS :" If we project the word "freedom" on a wall where 100 different people read it, there is only one Replica </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">initially</em><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">, but 100 Instances, resulting </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">subsequently </em><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px">in 100 </span><em style="border:0px; color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma; font-size:16px; font-stretch:normal; font-variant-east-asian:normal; font-variant-numeric:normal; line-height:normal; margin:0px; padding:0px">additional </em><font color="#000000" face="tahoma">Replicas as the Dynamic Interpretants in the people's minds."</font><br> <br> <font color="#000000" face="tahoma">RM :For me,no matter replicas ; we have 100 pairs of various instances which are choosen among the three possibilities above ; but the commens is allways the same in the time of analysis ... it can evolve ... in a future tense ...</font><br> <font color="#000000" face="tahoma">In fact, given the relative permanence of the commens we have two variabilities: categorical variability according to the modes of being of the instances and variabilities according to the persons that can in the long run affect the commens.<br> <br> Best regards,<br> <br> Robert Marty</font>
<div class="gl_quote" style="margin-top: 20px; padding-top: 5px;">De : "Jon Alan Schmidt"<br> A : [email protected]<br> Envoyé: jeudi 20 septembre 2018 23:06<br> Objet : ***SPAM*** Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign classification<br> <div class="gl_quoted"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr">Robert, List: <div> </div> <div>My apologies to all for the accidental post when I first started drafting this reply. I was doing some reformatting and clicked on the "Send" button by mistake.</div> <div> </div> <div>I agree that Peirce used "replica" only for Legisigns in his 1903 taxonomy, such that his classification at that time included Sinsigns that were <em>not </em>Replicas of Legisigns. However, I remain unable to identify any clear-cut cases of such Sinsigns. Nevertheless, the quote from CP 2.261 merits careful consideration.</div> <div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>CSP: A Rhematic Symbol or Symbolic Rheme [e.g., a common noun] is a sign connected with its Object by an association of general ideas in such a way that its Replica calls up an image in the mind which image, owing to certain habits or dispositions of that mind, tends to produce a general concept, and the Replica is interpreted as a Sign of an Object that is an instance of that concept.</div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> </div> <div>How might we restate this in accordance with Peirce's later terminology of multiple Objects and Interpretants? Perhaps it will be more straightforward to analyze your example instead.</div> <div> </div> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>RM: When I write the word "freedom", I write one instance of the concept ...</div> </div> </blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div> </div> <div>According to the quote, you write a <em>Replica</em>, which is interpreted as a <em>Sign </em>of "an instance of that concept," which is its <em>Object</em>. More specifically, I suggest (tentatively) that this is the individual <em>Dynamic </em>Object--the instance of the concept that you, as the Utterer, have in mind upon writing the Replica--while the concept itself, as the collection or continuum of all such instances, is the <em>General</em> Object.</div> <div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>RM: ... which produces the idea of freedom in the mind of every one which know english and perceive the graphism.</div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> </div> <div>I suggest (more confidently) that this is the Immediate Interpretant, and that anything of which "freedom" could be correctly predicated by someone possessing only knowledge of written English and its definitions--i.e., Sign System Acquaintance, but no Collateral Experience--is a constituent of the Immediate Object. The Dynamic Interpretant is the <em>actual </em>idea ("a general concept") that the event of <em>reading</em> the word "freedom"--an <em>Instance </em>of the Sign--produces in the mind of any <em>one </em>person, in accordance with his/her (fallible) Interpretative Habits ("certain habits or dispositions of that mind").</div> <div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div>RM: Clearly a replica is an instance and personally I always considered this an obvious fact.</div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> </div> <div>It is <em>not </em>obvious to me that the two terms are equivalent. I would say instead that the Replica is the enduring arrangement of ink on a page or pixels on a screen, while the Instance is the occurrence that determines a single interpreting Quasi-mind to a single Dynamic Interpretant. If we project the word "freedom" on a wall where 100 different people read it, there is only one Replica <em>initially</em>, but 100 Instances, resulting <em>subsequently </em>in 100 <em>additional </em>Replicas as the Dynamic Interpretants in the people's minds.</div> <div> </div> <div>Regards,</div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div> <div class="m_-6928648007471388578gmail_signature"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> <div dir="ltr"> <div>Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA</div> <div>Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman</div> <div><a href="http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt"; target="_blank">www.LinkedIn.com/in/<wbr>JonAlanSchmidt</a> - <a href="http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt"; target="_blank">twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt</a></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div lang="EN-CA"> <div class="m_-6928648007471388578gmail-m_-1075535511117063367WordSection1"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black; font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif; font-size:12pt">List,</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black; font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif; font-size:12pt">Robert Marty addressed this post to me and to the list, but apparently didn’t send it to the list address, so I’m forwarding it here. It contains some important comments on Peirce’s use of the term “replica.” Thank you, Robert!</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black; font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif; font-size:12pt">Gary f.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></strong><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a> <<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><strong>Sent:</strong> 20-Sep-18 09:28</span><br> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:12pt">Gary, list, w</span><span style="font-size:12pt">ith your indulgence for my very bad English,</span><br> </p> <font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">In the dated text 1903 (CP 2.254 - 2.263) Peirce uses exactly 15 times the term "replica" , 9 times in the only one 2.261. The first appearance is in 2.258, the iconic legisign ; consequently all 15 "replicas" appear exclusively in the classes which are legisigns or symbols ; but all the symbols are necessarily legisigns and we can say that replicas are consubstantially related with the legisigns .</span></font> <div style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"> <div class="m_-6928648007471388578gmail-m_3691620245704684007WordSection1"> <pre><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0); white-space:normal"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">The nature of the relationship is specifed immediately in 2.258 : "<em><span> </span>Being a Legisign, its mode of being is that of governing single<span> </span></em><strong><em>Replicas</em></strong><em>, each of which will be an Iconic Sinsign of a peculiar kind"</em>. As a result we have that the mode of being of the<span> </span><strong>replicas</strong><span> </span>is to be governed by the legisigns ; and we must remember that they are sinsigns "<em>of a peculiar kind"</em><span> </span>which means that all the sinsigns are not replicas. This is very important ; I explain the reasons further.</font></span></pre> <pre><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0); white-space:normal"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Previously I examine the others appearances. Within 2.259 and 2.260 it's exactly the same with again t<em>he "peculiar kind"</em>. Examining 2.261(the rhematic symbol) with its 9 appearances, we have the guess of the riddle in the first sentence:<span> </span><em>"A Rhematic Symbol or Symbolic Rheme [</em><strong><em>e.g.,<span> </span></em></strong><em>a common noun] is a sign connected with its Object by an association of general ideas in such a way that its<span> </span></em><strong><em>Replica</em></strong><em><span> </span>calls up an image in the mind which image, owing to certain habits or dispositions of that mind, tends to produce a general concept, and the<span> </span></em><strong><em>Replica</em></strong><em><span> </span>is interpreted as a Sign of an Object that is an instance of that concept." C</em>learly since a symbol is necessarily a legisign the relationship is again the same BUT here Peirce says that these replica (eg a common noun) is an instance of a concept. When I write the word "freedom", I write one instance of the concept which produces the idea of freedom in the mind of every one which know english and perceive the graphism. It's the same that to say that the word "freedom" written anywhere of any way is a member of the extension of the concept, himself regarded as an intension. Frege says that the noun written "fall" under the concept; Clearly a replica is an instance and personally I always considered this an obvious fact.</font></span></pre> <pre><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0); white-space:normal"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Continuing with 2.261 there is nothing new except that Peirce "cascades" the assertions concerning the classes of signs described previously. And he specify everytime<span> </span><em>"peculiar kind</em>", thus showing that all the set of the sinsigns is cut out in instances of various kinds according to the legisigns which governs them.</font></span></pre> <pre><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0); white-space:normal"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">2.262 and 2.263 only consolidate my conclusions.</font></span></pre> <pre><font><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0); white-space:normal"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">There is a simple manner of considerer this question by using the lattice of the classes of signs ; it's one true diagrammatisation of the Peirce's text. I develop this point of view in an article to appear.</font></span></font></pre> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <!-- PART SEPARATOR --><br> <br> <br> <br> -----------------------------<br> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .<br> <br> <br> <br> </div> <div class="gl_quoted"> </div> </div>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
