Hi list,
In a sense, Peircean semiotic is Socratic dialectic taken to its limit (art of conversation or of friendly dispute in which justice/truth/goodness/Thirdness is the motivation, which are slave to First and Second). There are three minds operating during the inquiry; the utterer, interpreter and the commens. The commens is “that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take place… It consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfill its function.” The interpretant is what the commens says, which is mediated between first and second. If you initially make explicit the noetically heterogeneous opinions about a phenomenon, which are in the respective minds of participants, issues with denotation and connotation will resolve themselves. hth, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List: > I fear that the distinction between connotation and denotation is being > lost in this discussion. > Cheers > Jerry > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thread:http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18467 > > JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18486 > > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18508 > > TG:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18511 > > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18512 > > > > Cf: > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/15/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-16/ > > Cf: > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/16/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-17/ > > > > Tom, List, > > > > Let me dispel any notion that “the interpretant introduces > > the person as part of the object-sign-interpretant structure”. > > We may have left it implicit or unclear in the text, but the > > lower case “i” and the dashed lines in the figure were meant > > to suggest the agency of the interpreter and the circumstance > > that signs and interpretants reside nearer the personal sphere > > than the objects, generally speaking. I think you know all the > > reasons why primers in semiotics tend to start out talking about > > interpreters and only gradually abstract away to interpretants. > > But I see now that was faulty notation, as it's more usual to > > read a lower case “i” as indicating a member of a local set I. > > Next time I will use a Greek iota for the interpretive agent. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon > > > > On 3/16/2016 12:57 PM, Tom Gollier wrote: > > > Jon, > > > > > > I think there's a troubling narrowness interpreting > > > this situation as something like: > > > > > > "In this narrative we can identify the characters > > > of the sign relation as follows: *coolness* is a > > > Sign of the Object *rain*, and the Interpretant > > > is *the thought of the rain’s likelihood*." > > > > > > First of all, how can something that has not yet occurred be > > > the object? And what of all the other things "coolness" might > > > indicate (be a sign of in that sense)? And the interpretant > > > introduces the person as part of the object-sign-interpretant > > > structure? > > > > > > Personally, I prefer to see the "sign" as a diagram of the elements > > > and relationships abstracted from this situation, the "object". And, > > > the interpretant, "rain," is then the inference being made using one > > > of those elements, "coolness", and its relationship to rain. I think > > > this view would accord well with Peirce's description of a diagram used > > > in problem-solving; it would allow the "rain" to remain virtual rather > > > than actual (along the lines set out by Deleuze); and it also doesn't > > > bring the man into the sign structure itself. He enters only in his > > > use of it to make the personal inference that he ought to quicken > > > his pace. > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > -- > > > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > > ----------------------------- > > 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 > . > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
