Sung, List: My understanding is that an interpretant is *any *effect that a sign *may *have (immediate), *does *have (dynamic), or *would *have (final). It is most commonly discussed in contexts where such effects are indeed on the mind of an interpreter, but Peirce was hoping to generalize his theory in such a way that this would not be its only application. As he wrote to Lady Welby:
<QUOTE Peirce, 12/23/1908, EP2:478> I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of "upon a person" is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood. <END QUOTE> By the way, regarding your comments today in the other thread, note that Peirce here clearly uses "Sign" (capitalized) to designate one relatum among three, not the triad itself. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > In a recent article ("Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in > organic nature", Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology XXX (2015) > 1-6), Kalevi wrote: > > ". . . . interpretant is enough; there can be interpretant without an > interpreter". > Is this true ? Can Kalevi or anyone else on these lists give me some > example of this ? > I always thought that Peirce defined an interpretant as the effect that a > sign has on the mind of an interpreter. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding > on my part ? >
----------------------------- 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 .
