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 .
