Jon Alan, List Thank you again for explaining your designs on how the hexadic sign works and for summarising them at the end of your post. This has allowed me to limit myself to reviewing your summary and I have been spending time on it for several days. I saw of course that you published a new post. I quickly went through it. I think it might complicate things even more for me. I therefore prefer to share with you my critical comments and my questions about this one summary before considering it with the seriousness that any real debate deserves .... I cut your summary into ten parts:
1-" *In summary, when there is an event of semeiosis--i.e., when a dynamical object determines a sign token to determine a dynamical interpretant--the commens is the one mind into which the sign itself fuses or welds the otherwise distinct minds of the utterer and interpreter." * I rephrase: whenever in the whole world an inter-individual communication takes place between the mind of a utterer A and that of an receiver B is produced one individual instances (token) of a sign that has the power to create a third unique mind that I note (A, B) in which the mind of A and the mind of B are merged. I immediately note a presupposition that for you any sign is an existing concept (type) that is individualized in each communication. I immediately point to it as a *conceptualist assumption *that I don't share. Nor does Peirce, who expresses it in his criticism of Hegel: * "He has usually overlooked external Secondness, altogether. In other words, he has committed the trifling oversight of forgetting that there is a real world with real actions and reactions. Rather a serious oversight that. Then Hegel had the misfortune to be unusually deficient in mathematics. He shows this in the very elementary character of his reasoning. (CP 1.368)* Moreover, if I follow you strictly, the world population being estimated at 7.55 billion and ifon the rough valuation to 5 billion the number of inhabitants who has the opportunity to communicate, we will theoretically have at every moment as many minds as pairs (A,B) or 5 000 000 000*(5 000 000 000-1)/2 minds. This is obviously an untenable position - and I do not insult you to think that you support it. That's why I think that, from the next sentence, write: 2- *"The dynamical object of the commens is the universe of reality, and its immediate *object is the logical universe of discourse … You write "*The dynamic object of the commens*" what could mean that the commens has a dynamic object and therefore would be a sign? I don't think it's your thought (but I have to consider that I may be the victim of a translation error) because following you write "*is the universe of reality*" and therefore this beginning of sentence should read "the dynamic object of this sign belongs to the universe of reality". If your expression revisited by me is valid, according to 1 the Od of the sign-token (or sign-type, you do not specify) is in "*the universe of reality*" whose relationship with the commens (A,B) is not specified either. 3- And following here is Oi who is, or is in "*the logical universe of discourse*", a new universe that is described as "logical" by a not knew authority, don't related to the previous one and is not precised but I suppose it is included, and, 4- we learn that it has be "as established by collateral experience/observation that the utterer and interpreter have in common. " hence I deduce that in every commun mind (A, B) there are only the personal experiences and observations of the utterer and the receiver. I can't imagine two people who in their lives have never met the word "logical" and have no idea what logic is, could build such a universe every time they communicate. 5- But now you're writing " *The immediate object of the sign itself is how it identifies those objects--e.g., descriptive words and/or designative gestures*--" which obliges me to return to my previous understanding since we have two immediate objects, the first is associated with the commens (or perhaps in the commens) and the second is associated with the sign and describes as a *"how*" that is to "identify" "these" objects, *"these"* denoting Od and Oi in their respective universes. The sign itself would show in some way these two objects that is to say that it is the sign that would designate the Od and the Oi. But we know that it is Od and Oi which determine the sign in semiosis. While everywhere Peirce writes that the sign is passive in the relationship with the immediate object that determines it,for you he designates it. I don't understand. *6- and following "the immediate interpreter is how he transmits information about these objects", yet another element of the sign that is a "how" able of transmitting information about these objects. I understand that although the perception of the sign can convey information about objects by bringing shapes into the mind, but of the perception that you never speak and I do not even know if you count it in your vision finally very personal*. 7-" *both are internal to the sign*" … Are you talking about semiosis? I think so but a little redundancy helped to know what you put here, at that moment "inside the sign". 8- "*and thus the immediate (communicational) interpretant is a determination of the commens"* …finally a clarification on this immediate interpretant that you say is a determination of the commens. I have to go back to point 2 where I called him (A,B). So the commens has determinations? What you mean? That the commens is general and that the immediate interpretant is a particularity of him? But then if it is general it cannot fit in a particular pair (A, B) ... You see that I point out what you seem to want to avoid ... 9- " *The dynamical interpretant is the sign token's actual determination of the interpreter's mind*" which seems to me to be a little more consistent with the literature provided that this determination of the mind of the receiver B be the determination of the commens (A,B), the common mind... 10 – "*while the final interpretant is the sign's ideal effect; both are external to the sign, and thus external to the commens*." I expected it of course here and more than usual it seems to me literally "falling from the sky" since it is a pure view of the mind, which nothing calls in the current of semiosis. It seems to me an obligation to you because of your conceptualist conception, after descending on the earthly realities with determinations to go back into the sky of ideas to encapsulate the totality of the process in an ideal world. Pour conclure et dans l'attente de derniers éclaircissements qui me permettraient d'accéder à votre conception pleine et entière de la semiosis, faute de quoi je devrai conclure à mon incapacité de le faire, je me permets de citer après avoir cité précédemment JJ Rousseau, de citer ces célèbres vers de Nicolas Boileau (1636 – 1711): *"Ce que l’on conçoit bien s’énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément*" approximate translation (unsecured) could be: "*what is well conceived is clearly enunciated ,and the words for to say it happen easily".* So be it… Best regards, Robert Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 03:35, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Robert, List: > > As promised, I will attempt to offer my own semeiotic analysis of my post > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00234.html> from > last week (included below) for comparison with your parable > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00236.html> (also > included below). For the sake of clarity, I will first review how I employ > the terminology, seeking to be as faithful as possible to Peirce's own > usage while recognizing that there are some differences. For the sake of > (relative) brevity, I will omit supporting quotes and citations. > > As the sender, I am the *utterer*, and every recipient who reads the post > is an *interpreter*. The post itself is a *sign token*, the embodiment > of a *sign type*, which is a definitely significant form. It consists > almost entirely of questions, each of which is likewise a token of a type. > Two of the nine questions have one word in italics for emphasis as a *sign > tone*, which is an indefinite significant character. > > Every question expresses a proposition, and the *dynamical object* of every > proposition--what it *actually does* denote--is the entire universe of > reality. Its *immediate object *is the logical universe of > discourse--the collection of everything that the terms involved in it > *possibly > could* denote to an interpreter who possesses the necessary familiarity > with them by virtue of collateral experience in the past and/or collateral > observation at the present. Those items are described by each term's > *immediate > interpretant*, which is simply its definition--whatever it *possibly > could* signify to an interpreter who is sufficiently acquainted with the > system of sign types to which it belongs; in this case, written English. > > An event of semeiosis happens when a dynamical object determines a sign > token to determine an individual interpreter to a *dynamical > interpretant*--what > the sign token *actually does* signify to that interpreter on that > occasion, which is its effect as a feeling (emotional interpretant), an > exertion (energetic interpretant), or a further sign token (logical > interpretant). This can be (and often is) different for different > interpreters under different circumstances, although treating each of them > as a discrete occurrence is an artifact of analysis, because real semeiosis > is truly continuous. The *final interpretant* is what the sign itself > *necessarily > would *signify to any interpreter under ideal circumstances--the habit > toward which all the different dynamical interpretants determined by > different tokens of different types of the same sign would converge over > the course of infinite inquiry by an infinite community. In summary, the > sign token is the *efficient* cause of the dynamical interpretant, the > immediate interpretant is its *formal* cause, and the final interpretant > is its *final* cause. > > In a very different sense, the dynamical (dynamoid) object determines the > immediate object, which determines the sign, which determines the final > (destinate) interpretant, which determines the dynamical (effective) > interpretant, which determines the immediate (explicit) interpretant. This > is not a *temporal *sequence of strictly dyadic efficient-causal > relations, but rather a *logical* scheme for identifying which 28 sign > classes are really possible out of the 729 that are mathematically > possible, based on the *universe *to which each correlate in turn > belongs. There are three such universes, which are distinguished by three > modalities of being that correspond to Peirce's three phenomenological > categories and consist respectively of possibles (1ns), existents (2ns), or > necessitants (3ns). > > The governing rule for sign classification is that a possible can only > determine a possible, a necessitant can only be determined by a > necessitant, and an existent can determine either a possible or an existent > while being determined by either an existent or a necessitant. This > conforms to Gary Richmond's vector > <https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm> > of > *analysis *(3ns→2ns→1ns), along with the logical relation of involution > or presupposition. Accordingly, although the order of the three *genuine > *correlates is the same as above (O→S→I)--conforming to Gary's vector of > *determination* (2ns→1ns→3ns)--the universe to which each of these > belongs (Od=2, S=1, If=3) constrains the universe(s) to which the > corresponding degenerate (Oi=1/2, Id=2/3) and doubly degenerate (Ii=1/2/3) > correlates can belong, resulting in the hexad (Od→Oi→S→If→Id→Ii). Again, > this is a *logical *arrangement, not a temporal or efficient-causal > sequence. > > That seems like enough for now, but there is more to come. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon Alan, List >> >> I'd rather we stay on the list. I have clues that suggest that people are >> interested; if some are embarrassed they have no obligation ... >> >> Today I will answer your questions using another rhetorical means, the >> parable ... >> >> "*A **parable is a succinct, didactic >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didacticism> story, in prose >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose> or verse >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_(poetry)>**, that illustrates one >> or more instructive lessons or principles*" ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable ) ... >> >> I assure you, it will be prose ... >> >> >> >> On 05/20/20 at a certain time, in the mind of a person living in Olathe, >> Kansas,USA, *(the sender),* a person who has well-established and known >> ideas from the list on the final causes, effective causes, determinations, >> ... a subjective theory labelled "JAS" *(Od)* is formed the idea of >> addressing questions to a member of the list in particular and also to the >> list *(the receiver, the receivers)*… he imagines a series of questions >> *(Oi)* that are necessarily determined by his theory which they carry >> "in hollow" the mark ... he writes them and publishes them *(S)* … its >> main receiver (his first name is an index perceived first) perceives this >> text ... in the course of his reading his mind is inhabited by more or >> less blurred mnemonic reminders of a large number of objects of previous >> discussions, more or less interconnected, mixed - as with each of the >> messages he received from the same sender - with this following information >> (index) which never ceased to amaze him: "*Professional Engineer, >> Philosopher Amateur, Lutheran Layman"*. All this has formed in his mind >> a kind of "interpretation guide" from which he apprehends the content of >> the messages received from this sender, a set to which is added the one to >> which I answer by the parable - under construction before my eyes and soon >> under yours, i e of all those who will perceive it (read it). This receiver >> has therefore, with more or less accuracy, conceptualized this set. He >> finds himself obliged, simply to have read this injunctive message, in >> which the sender has somehow "*printed his mark*", to modify or not his >> uncertain conceptualization in which dominates the idea of " >> *predestination*" that his studies and readings have allowed him to >> associate with Lutheranism (Calvinism too) and in general protestantism: >> It's *(If)* … in immediate reaction in his mind is recalled his own >> subjective theory which contains his long-held opinions on these issues >> *(Ie)*. He acquired them early by reading Jacques Monod's 1965 Nobel >> Prize book," Hasard and Necessity," later reinforced by reading René >> Thom's book, Medall Field of Mathematics (1958), entitled " Structural >> Stability and Morphogenesis, W. A. Benjamin, (1972)". After a quick >> confrontation between the two theories for a possible change in the way he >> considers the questions of the final causes and the efficient causes, he >> decides not to modify one iota and to communicate this decision to the >> person who asked it and to the list *(Iex)* in the explicit form that >> here: "*In* *his world of signs, determinations are efficient causes and >> there is no need to incorporate final causes that his own subjective theory >> and underlying atheism exclude*."*.* >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Robert (the receiver) >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity >> >> Le jeu. 21 mai 2020 à 04:44, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> a écrit : >> >>> Robert, List: >>> >>> I only have more questions at this point. If you prefer to answer any >>> or all of them off-List, that would be fine with me. >>> >>> Is it your view that "determines" is *always *a synonym for >>> "efficiently causes"? If so, why would it entail that the universe to >>> which any one correlate belongs constrains the universe(s) to which the >>> next correlate in the sequence can belong? >>> >>> If I may ask, why do you suspect a connection between being a "stranger >>> to the final causes" and your atheism? >>> >>> On what basis do you believe that the destinate, effective, and explicit >>> interpretants are all *actual *effects? Do you likewise understand the >>> other three correlates of the hexad to be actual? >>> >>> Please forgive the repetition, but what is "destinate" about the >>> destinate interpretant as you define it? And what is "explicit" about the >>> explicit interpretant as you define it? >>> >>> Finally, how do you relate your podium diagram to the destinate, >>> effective, and explicit interpretants? Which one do you see as the genuine >>> interpretant (3), which is degenerate (2/3), and which is doubly degenerate >>> (1/2/3)? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
