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

[Helmut Raulien]

 

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 achieved. People (animals, organisms, molecules?) have a feeling, intuition, instinct, internalised law or axiom, that everything has or would have a true representation. This final interpretant, though not realised, does nevertheless do its work for the sign this way here and now.

 

Best,

Helmut

 

 18. Mai 2020 um 17:18 Uhr
g...@gnusystems.ca
wrote:

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 <robert.mart...@gmail.com>
Sent: 18-May-20 03:25
To: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
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 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 .

-----------------------------
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 .