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 .
