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 <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-09/msg00204.html>, here <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00024.html>, and here <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00173.html>. 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [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 .
