Jon Alan, You wrote:
"Constrains" refers to the rule of determination-- -"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" (EP 2:481). But, thus this imply that a Neccesitant determines a Possible? Auke > Op 14 april 2020 om 2:42 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>: > > Auke, List: > > I am not sure that I understand your objection. In my current view, the > final and normal interpretants are one and the same--whatever the sign > necessarily would signify under ideal circumstances; namely, in the ultimate > opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. This indeed does > not entail that it is "inescapable," because it may never actually have that > effect; it is "final" in the sense of a final cause, not something that comes > last in a series. "Nature" in this context means purpose for the final > interpretant, mode of being for the dynamical object or interpretant, and > mode of presentation for the immediate object or interpretant; in each case > belonging to one of three universes--possibles, existents, or necessitants > (EP 2:478-490, 1908). "Constrains" refers to the rule of determination--"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" > (EP 2:481! ). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:03 PM < [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] > wrote: > > > > > > Jon wrote: > > > > In other words, the nature of the final interpretant constrains the > > possible natures of the dynamic and immediate interpretants, just as the > > nature of the dynamical object constrains the possible nature of the > > immediate object. > > > > Jon, > > > > That is quite some statement, I wonder whether Trump would agree, > > look at his deeds. And, I mean this in a very real sense. It was not just a > > joke that Peirce also wrote: we have to choose between mamon and god. At > > most, it is our duty to find the final interpretant, it is not an > > inescapable end. Nature of ...? What means nature here? Without nature and > > with normal instead of final, I could consider to agree. But then we are > > only at the level of the legisign aspect ( the involved sign aspects > > included of course) or, in other words, dealing with habits of > > interpretation. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
