Jon, lists, (1) I understand Peirce's intention: He wanted to generalize anthroposemiosis to include "physiosemiosis" (i.e., sign processes in abiotic systems or physicochemical realms), the combination of both of which I often refer to as "cosmosemiosis" [1]. In other words, I believe that Peircean semiosis (or ITR, Irreversible Triadic Relation, in my discussions) applies to the whole of the Universe, including life and non-life and throughout its evolutionary history starting from the Big Bang.
(2) I think it is more logical to assume that "Sign" is irreducibly triadic and "sign" represents a prescinded version of Sign, i.e., "sign" highlights the two arrows attached to it directly while hiding the third arrow that by-pass it. All the best. Sung Reference: [1] Ji, S. (2012). Ji, S. (2012). Complementarity. <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Excerpts_Chapters_2_complementarity_08192012.pdf> In: *Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.* Springer, New York. Section 2.3, pp. 24-50, Table 2.13. PDF at http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Book Chapters . On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ? >> > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- 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 .
