Robert, List: Thanks for your comments, and for joining the List discussion.
RM: Od----->Oi----->S------>Ii------>Id----->If I disagree. 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. The Explicit Interpretant is what a Replica of the Sign *explicitly *signifies within a particular Sign System; i.e., the *Immediate *Interpretant. Hence the logical order of determination is Od-->Oi-->S-->If-->Id-->Ii. RM: Where is the immediate object? The Immediate Object is what a Replica of the Sign *could *denote within a particular Sign System to someone who knew only its definitions; i.e., possessing no Collateral Experience. RM: 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. This is indeed Peirce's late taxonomy, except that he divided Signs according to the Mode of *Presentation *of the Immediate Object, not its Mode of *Being*. In any case, I have proposed for consideration a *different *framework in which all Signs are Types, and therefore all Signs have General Objects. As a Type, the Sign *itself *is in a *genuine *triadic relation with the General Object and Final Interpretant--what it *necessarily would* denote and signify to a Quasi-mind in the state of *Substantial *Knowledge; i.e., complete omniscience and thus *infallible *Interpretative Habits. Each *Instance *of the Sign (single occurrence) is in a *degenerate *triadic relation with an individual Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant--what it *actually does* denote and signify to a Quasi-mind in the state of *Informed *Knowledge; i.e., finite Collateral Experience and thus *fallible *Interpretative Habits. Each *Replica *of the Sign (enduring embodiment) is in a *doubly degenerate* triadic relation with an Immediate Object and Immediate Interpretant--what it *possibly could* denote and signify to a Quasi-mind in the state of *Essential *Knowledge; i.e., mere Sign System Acquaintance and thus *minimal *Interpretative Habits. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM, <marty.rob...@neuf.fr> wrote: > Jon Alan, list > > JAS : " How might we restate this in accordance with Peirce's later > terminology of multiple Objects and Interpretants? " > > 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 : > > *"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 Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines > the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate Interpretant which > determines the Effective Interpretant which determines > the Explicit Interpretant 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 : * > http://patrick-benazet.chez-alice.fr/lattices/ > > My transcription *: *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) > > JAS : "According to the quote, you write a *Replica*, which is > interpreted as a *Sign *of "an instance of that concept," which is its > *Object*. More specifically, I suggest (tentatively) that this is the > individual *Dynamic *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 *General* > Object." > > RM : Where is the immediate object ? Remember : *"**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)* > > 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 > 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). > > JAS :" If we project the word "freedom" on a wall where 100 different > people read it, there is only one Replica *initially*, but 100 Instances, > resulting *subsequently *in 100 *additional *Replicas as the Dynamic > Interpretants in the people's minds." > > 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 ... > 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. > > Best regards, > > Robert Marty
----------------------------- 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 .
