Thank you Jon Alan, this is really helpful and I thank you very much for making this extreme clarification effort. I could have written the first two paragraphs up to the number "729" and this is already a very important achievement.
I can see the disagreement. To be sure, it is worth verifying that in the daily practice of signs the analyses that you and I would make would be as different as those that can be rationally prejudged when we express each other. That's why I'll make you a proposal at the end of the post. 1. Before I would like to clearly act the theoretical disagreement: you place If (= "*what the sign itself would necessarily mean to someone in ideal circumstances, including the ultimate opinion after an infinite investigation by an infinite community"*) directly after S that would logically determine it. The sequel is self-evident because for you this If located just after S logically determines the last two.. 2. For me: · *S* is perceived by existing subjects (interpreters) (or who have existed depending on the time of the analysis). S is the product of a coding a priori made with the help of Oi and determined by Od. A process of interpretation takes place at the time of the "physiological" perception of this sign (the literature on visual signs is found in the notion of "retinex", a suitcase word put for "retina+ cortex" that illustrates my point).). The process is as follows: - *Id* is for each subject the determination of his mind by this perception. Id consists in the reactivation of what the subject has actually internalized during his collateral experiments of the earlier/external uses of this sign S. It is in a way his abstract subjective *theory* in force in his mind at that very moment. - - *Ie:* is determined by Id itis the actualization of this prior internalization *faced with* the current circumstances of the perception of the sign (the perception of the flag of the USSR today which does not have the same effect as in 1950 and yet its characteristics are the same) in the mind of the subject. In other words, this is what the transmitter manages to create in the mind of the interpretater by successively using the only possible channels: a prior coding followed by a percept .Any advertising sign is a perfect illustration of my point and by extension I will go so far as to say that all signs are signs of this nature from Roland Barthes' "passionate roses" to Colin Powell's flour tube on February 5, 2003. Efficient suits me very well because it reflects in a way the *"performance"* of the sign with the interpreters he meets. For Roland Barthes what the effects of red roses offered to people to whom another person wants to express his passion, for Colin Powell it was the effects of his tube on the whole world that had to perceive the dreaded anthrax. Juste a reminder:"*By the way, the dynamical object does not mean something out of the mind. It means something forced upon the mind in perception, but including more than perception reveals. It is an object of actual Experience"* (EP 478) - *Iex*, explicit interpretant, is the result of this confrontation. The subject is* "forced"* to either retain his subjective theory, or modify it to take into account the experience he has just done in particular circumstances. "*But we must also note that there is certainly a third kind of Interpretant, which I call the Final Interpretant, because it is that which would finally be decided to be the true interpretation if consideration of the matter were carried so far that an ultimate opinion were reached*." (CP 8.184). In other words, it is the subject who decides the sustainability of his subjective theory strengthened or modified in a race towards his ultimate opinion that could be the current opinion. I come back to you: you place the subject (someone) from the beginning in ideal circumstances where he would be the holder, at the time of his perception of the sign, of the result of an infinite investigation conducted by the community to which he belongs. For me it is clearly "a view of the mind". How can he access it? For this result cannot be communicated to him by the creator of the sign whose conceptions in this area are historically dated. Certainly the issuer can imagine him as a member of this community; he may have the means to do so, and I do not deny him that possibility. The receiver too. It would clearly be a recourse to a *collective imagination,* a central concept of Jungian analytical psychology, also studied by many sociologists, notably Cornelius Castoriadis and also anthropologists ... Everything would then happen in this collective imagination and the confrontation would occur between their subjective theories as both participants in community building. But now I may be driving you into areas you don't want to go to. So could we continue this debate by exemplifying it on the simple cases that I propose: semiotic analyses (summary, just the essentials) with our respective hexadic signs of the flags of the former USSR, Nazi Germany, the United States and France. It would not be a beauty contest but an experience that can be revealing because there are to my knowledge very few analyses with this six-item sign except the examples of Peirce of course. If you agreed, I'll start whenever you want. Best regards and thank you again, Robert Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 03:52, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Robert, List: > > I apologize for the apparent lack of clarity in my posts. In this one, I > will try to limit myself to addressing your two specific requests as > directly as I can. > > I have no objection whatsoever to the hexad sequence Od → Oi → S → Id → > Ie → Iex where Od = dynamoid object, Oi = immediate object, S = sign, Id = > destinate interpretant, Ie = effective interpretant, Iex = explicit > interpretant, and → = determines. After all, this is exactly what Peirce > states at EP 2:481 (1908). > > Right before this, he defines "determines" in what I call the *logical* > sense--"a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible" and "a Necessitant > can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant." In other words, > the universe to which any one correlate belongs *constrains *the > universe(s) to which the next correlate in the sequence can belong. If the > dynamical object is a possible (1ns), then all the subsequent correlates > are likewise possibles (1ns). If the explicit interpretant is a > necessitant (3ns), then all the previous correlates are likewise > necessitants (3ns). If the sign itself is an existent (2ns), then the > destinate interpretant is either a possible (1ns) or an existent (2ns). > And so on, yielding 28 classes of signs rather than 729. > > As far as I know, we agree that the dynamoid object is what Peirce > elsewhere calls the dynamical object, and that the effective interpretant > is what he elsewhere calls the dynamical interpretant. Our disagreement > thus seems to be limited to the other two interpretants. For reasons that > I have explained, I believe that the destinate interpretant is what Peirce > elsewhere calls the final interpretant, and that the explicit interpretant > is what he elsewhere calls the immediate interpretant. Just as the genuine > (dynamical) object logically determines the degenerate (immediate) object, > the genuine (final) interpretant logically determines the degenerate > (dynamical) interpretant, which logically determines the doubly degenerate > (immediate) interpretant. I define these three interpretants as follows. > > - The immediate (explicit) interpretant is whatever a sign type *possibly > could* signify to someone who possesses the requisite acquaintance > with the system of signs to which it belongs. > - The dynamical (effective) interpretant is whatever an individual > sign token *actually does* signify to someone on an individual > occasion. > - The final (destinate) interpretant is whatever the sign itself > *necessarily > would* signify to someone under ideal circumstances, including the > ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. > > Is that helpful? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon Alan, Gary F., List >> >> I agree for only one place for "destinate" but none for "predestinate" , >> otherwise I'm sure you would have found it and brandished it like a trophy >> ... 😉 >> >> >> >> Now I have to admit that I can't figure out what you say is clear so much >> you're making little effort in the presentation to be precisely clear. You >> produce such a fog of quotations, sentences that say what a thing is mixed >> with what it is not, that a logical order in ideal circumstances is not >> chronological order in other circumstances, ... that I declare myself >> incapable in the current state of our exchanges to take a critical look at >> your statement. I would like to quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau: >> >> >> >> "*On pourrait, pour élaguer peu les tortillages et les amphigouris, >> obliger tout harangueur à énoncer au commencement de son discours la >> proposition qu'il veut faire".*(J.J. Rousseau, Le Gouvernement de >> Pologne.) >> >> >> >> a sentence with two old terms untranslatable but you guess criticisms >> that I like which means that it would "*require any speaker to state at >> the beginning of his speech the proposal he wishes to make*"... It's an >> effort I made to look at what was behind your Sà(S-Od) à (S-If) >> sequence and I think I made it clear, which took me a long time. >> >> >> >> Also I would be very obliged to expose you >> >> >> · what sequence you object exactly to the sequence: >> >> Od à Oi à S à Id à Ie à Iex (LW December 23 1908) ? >> >> (understanding that this sequence must be understood with the >> definitions I have clearly stated for each of its elements including the >> arrows) >> >> >> >> · and of course, for each of its elements, the exact definition >> you give of them, including the arrows. >> >> >> >> Otherwise we will leave it by force of things… >> >> >> >> In the meantime, >> >> Well cordially to you >> >> 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 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 .
