Gary , List
Surely not and I even think otherwise! The destined interpretant is the one that the issuer of the sign can expect given his knowledge and mastery of the cultural codes currently in force at the very moment of the issuance of the sign. His intention consist of an anticipation of sharing the "commens" with the receiver. That is why, in my opinion, Peirce also calls the intended interpreter, intentional interpretant, and it is very explicit below: *There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant,* *which is a determination of that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take place. This mind may be called the commens. It consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfill its function. **This I proceed to explain. (EP p.478)* When the sharing is effective, the Cominterpretant has validated it, the commens comes out strengthened. If the discrepancies accumulate over time, the question of the evolution of the commens will be asked to the society that is the guarantor since the commens is consisting above all of signs of law. Areas of the same commens (or almost) for all communicators there are many. For example, the word "tree" or a tree drawing in our societies, including among the most remote peoples, must benefit from this status. On the reality of knowledge this is a question that seems to me quite far from the current debates except to say that knowledge about well-defined mathematical objects is indisputable. Le lun. 18 mai 2020 à 17:19, <[email protected]> a écrit : > Robert, is it your intention to argue that communication cannot “succeed” *at > all* unless the interpretant of the sign is completely determinate, and > identically so for all communicants? > > Would you likewise say that knowledge is not actual, or real, unless it is > absolute and unquestionable? > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* robert marty <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 18-May-20 03:25 > *To:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the > classification of signs > > > > Jon Alan, List > > > > I repeat this debate with you and it leads me to ask you a preliminary > question that I should have asked you on September 22, 2018, but I probably > did not have very clear ideas 18 months ago. Here it is: what you say this: > > > > " 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"? > > > > Because this quote troubles me a little: " In that second part, I call > "truth" the *predestinate* opinion,17 by which I ought to have meant that > which would ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently > far in that particular direction." (The Essential Peirce A Sketch of > Logical Critics p.457) > > > > It seems to me in complete fact that if this were the case the whole of > humanity would be doomed to wait until the end of eternity to succeed in > its first communication. Unless an immanent power deposits it in all minds > at the moment of the perception of the sign? Should we read "predestinate"? > > > > > > Because there's a perception, isn't there? You will not be able to escape > the chronology until the end of time: the signs that actually occur in > social life must be taken care of by the theory of signs, shaped to be > subjected to analysis, debated ... Etc... Otherwise what are we doing here? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Robert > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
