[PEIRCE-L] Intentional, Effectual, Communicational (was To put an end ...)

Robert, Gary F., List: I think that our views on this may not be so far apart after all. As I explained here , Peirce evidently realized a few weeks after writing the passage quoted below (dated 1906 Mar 9) that since the intended

[PEIRCE-L] Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion (was To put an end ...)

Robert, List: Thanks again for our brief off-List exchange over the weekend. As far as I know, EP 2:481 (1908 Dec 23) is the only place where Peirce ever uses the terms "destinate interpretant" and "explicit interpretant." Although he seems to settle on "immediate interpretant" thereafter, he

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Robert, List, Whilst taking note of Edwina's comment, thank you for this, this is what I meant, allowing that my use of 'mind' is individual based, hence what is being discussed is the pooled product of minds. The components of what we are talking about are in relation to what we are talking

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

I am sorry but if you are begining with " If commens means the sum at any time of whatever everybody happens to come up with,..." I am obliged, on Peirce's list to give the floor to peirce on this subject : " There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Jerry, it's clear to me the passage quoted is coming from the realm of interpreting. The speaker might plan to engage others' reflexes but I think the speaker also on engaging their intellectual interpreting; it's for us each to override or complement our reflexes with our interpreting,

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }List - as I see it, this question was specifically asked by Robert Marty of Jon Alan Schmidt -- a question asking about his specific views on the Interpretants - and I think it has to be first, replied to by Jon Alan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Jerry R., List, To act means to get on with life. If commens means the sum at any time of whatever everybody happens to come up with, we can each develop whatever aims we want, at any time, as we go along. From your wording here do you seem to be allowing for this. I therefore don't quite

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Dear Michael, list, Here is an example of “system of sensing”: *Hegseth, an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump who ran for a Minnesota Senate seat in 2012, has previously urged "healthy people" to "have some courage" and attempt to contract the coronavirus in order to build "herd

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

List, Whilst there can be an infinite amount of interpreting by a potentially limitless community, final interpretant isn't this. Alongside descriptions by for example Donna Williams, a writer on neurology, the immediate interpretant corresponds to the pure perception part of colour, shape,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Methodology (was To put an end to the false debate...

Auke, The point I was trying make:  Either/Or debates are a waste of time. There is an open-ended number of different ways of perceiving, thinking, talking, reasoning, and acting.  In the abstract, there is no reason to debate whether method M175 is better or worse than method M837926. AB>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Dear Cecile, list, Why not? I mean, isn’t belief supposedly *that* upon which one is prepared to act? What, then, is *that* belief? Let us take our situation, then. We have utterers and interpreters (and presumably a commens somewhere). And if we take Peirce at his word, then the only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed... De: "Jerry Rhee" À: "Helmut Raulien" Cc: "Gary Fuhrman" , "peirce-l" Envoyé: Lundi 18 Mai 2020 21:18:19 Objet: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs Dear Helmut, list, What

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Relation Theory

Cf: Relation Theory • Discussion 1 At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/18/relation-theory-%e2%80%a2-discussion-1/ Responding to what I'll abductively interpret as a plea for relevance from the cybernetic galley, let me give a quick review of where we are in this many-oared expedition.

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Dear Helmut, list, What an interesting observation. *meh*.. I don’t believe it. With best wishes, Jerry R On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:25 PM Helmut Raulien wrote: > > List > > do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the final > interpretant is the first element in

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

  List   do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the final interpretant is the first element in logical order, but the last in temporal order? In this case I would propose a solution attempt like this: The truth works as a motive, a quest for it, although it is not yet

RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

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?

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