Auke, List: AvB: .. with the bones, i.e. the technical terms and their arrangement YOU did a good job in sorting things out.
Thank you, I sincerely appreciate it. AvB: I do not know whether you recognized that as we have an alpha, beta and gamma part of EG, we also have an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics, i.e. the calssifications that yield 10/propositional, 28/quantification and 66/modality. Just to be clear, are you suggesting a direct correspondence between the alpha/beta/gamma EGs and the 1903/hexadic/decadic sign taxonomies, or just a loose analogy? I am more inclined to see the 1903 and hexadic schemes as almost entirely different--again, they have only one trichotomy in common, the division according to the nature of the sign itself--and the decadic approach as an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to combine and integrate the other two. AvB: But, that only with the small classification it is possible to correlate the sign aspects with the interpretant aspects (emotional interpretant - qualisign, etc) ... I disagree, although my current view is that the correlation is different from anything that Peirce explicitly advocated. The immediate interpretant as a possibility pertains to a type, the dynamical interpretant as an actuality pertains to a token with its tones, and the final interpretant as a conditional necessity pertains to the sign itself. All three are divisible into emotional (feeling), energetic (exertion), and logical (further sign) interpretants. AvB: ... and that this correlation is needed to come to terms with interpretaional processes: it makes no sence to make distinctions with regard to the sign if those distinctions do not play a role in the proces of interpretation. I agree, which is why I now try to focus more on analyzing the process of semeiosis than on the classifying signs. AvB: But, since you take normal and final interpretant as the very same, you generalize over grand scale sequences and there our ways depart. I am not aware of any solid arguments for treating the normal and final interpretants as *different*. The various definitions that I just quoted in my last post seem to indicate that the two terms were virtually synonymous in Peirce's usage. As for scale, he stated that the *entire universe* is a sign, specifically an argument--"a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903). AvB: Did you read Hulswit's "A semiotic account of causation"? I have read his papers, "A Guess at the Riddle of Semeiotic Causation" (1998) and "Semeiotic and the Cement of the Universe: A Peircean Process Approach to Causation" (2001), which I assume cover similar ground. It has been a few years, though. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:25 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Correction again: are of the opinion that with the bones, i.e. the > technical terms and their arrangement YOU did a good job in sorting things > out. > > Op 16 april 2020 om 10:10 schreef [email protected]: > > Jon Alan, > > I am a structural engineer, not an architect, so I specialize in bones > rather than meat. :-) > > I noticed that and I, having studied the logical notebook and the Welby > letters, are of the opinion that with the bones, i.e. the technical terms > and their arrangement did a good job in sorting things out. But, without > meat it will be hard to avoid making your own private reality out of the > bones. > > I do not know whether you recognized that as we have an alpha, beta and > gamma part of EG, we also have an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics, > i.e. the calssifications that yield 10/propositional, 28/quantification and > 66/modality. But, that only with the small classification it is possible to > correlate the sign aspects with the interpretant aspects (emotional > interpretant - qualisign, etc) and that this correlation is needed to come > to terms with interpretaional processes: it makes no sence to make > distinctions with regard to the sign if those distinctions do not play a > role in the proces of interpretation. > > However for me you conflate different perspectives. I tried to get a hold > on this by invoking art where we can look at 1. individual pieces/signs or > 2. the development of an artist in a series from the habit of figurative > imaging to abstract imaging. > > ad 1. if we look at an individual piece/sign and its interpretation, after > sufficient, etc.. and in an ideal situation we will arive at the normal > interpretant. For this situation in my estimate your remarks are fair and > logical order holds. > > ad 2. But, since you take normal and final interpretant as the very same, > you generalize over grand scale sequences and there our ways depart. On > this matter I came to similar conclusions as Edwina. > > Did you read Hulswit's "A semiotic account of causation"? if you don't > feel at home with the meat, this is second best. > > Regards, > > Auke > >
----------------------------- 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 .
