> On Aug 25, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > CG: Don’t confuse the sign with the sign-vehicle. > > I generally avoid the term "sign-vehicle," because Peirce did not use it. > The closest I could find was in CP 1.339 (undated), where he wrote, "A sign > stands for something to the idea which it produces, or modifies. Or, it is a > vehicle conveying into the mind something from without."
I generally do too, except there were some big debates over Peircean terminology here. Not everyone agree and I’m not interested relitigating that debate. So I’m picking alternative vocabulary to avoid debate on those issues. Sometimes it’s best to stick with Peirce’s terminology. Sometimes a shift of terminology can be clearest. > My impression was that the Immediate Object is internal to the Sign, not > necessarily internal to the speaker; Yes. It’s just to the speaker in that example. The distinction derives out of the early inside/outside distinction with mind - especially with Descartes. Peirce then extends and generalizes this such that not all signs are internal to a person about external objects. > It seems to me that the Immediate Object is more like the the average > understanding of the word "water" in the English language, not just that in > the speaker. Again it depends upon the type of analysis. The reason I made that distinction is there are no users of language who fully use that language. Likewise in any particular conversation there’s usually jargon and connotation added in while a lot that is part of the language is excluded. As that quote from Peirce I gave noted, “...philosophists are in the habit of distinguishing two objects of many signs, the immediate and the real. The former is an image, or notion, which the interpreter is supposed to have already formed in his mind before the sign is uttered. “ > As for the Final Interpretant, "I confess [with Peirce] that my own > conception of this interpretant is not yet quite free from mist" (CP 4.536, > 1906); but I am starting to think of it as perhaps the habit of feeling, > action, or thought that would emerge from self-controlled repetition of a > particular Dynamic Interpretant. That’s right but habit in what? The entire universe. (I’ll answer the rest later)
----------------------------- 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 .
