Auke, List: AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no conclusions.
Yes, Peirce was right to call himself "a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic" (CP 5.488; 1907). AB: I in particular disagree with your: "However, as I have suggested previously, the three Interpretants themselves seem to be more properly characterized as possible (Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each divided into feeling/action/thought." It is a working hypothesis, at best. I am certainly open to being convinced otherwise. AB: It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each other according to the mature division of the sciences. I am not too familiar with these concepts and would like to learn more about them, so I will review your 2007 paper, which I apparently downloaded a while ago. Would you mind elaborating their specific relevance to the current discussion, and perhaps suggest some additional reading that I could do? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > > > As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no > conclusions. The EP only gives a fragment of the groping. As much of his > other writings gives a lot more fragments. It may be that only not being > able to regard the blackboard (or in its mundane character the sheets of > Assertion, description or semiotics as a sign) that prevented him from > finishing the system. All ingredients are present. > > > > I in particular disagree with your: > > ." However, as I have suggested previously, the three Interpretants > *themselves > *seem to be more properly characterized as possible (Immediate), actual > (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each divided into > feeling/action/thought. > > -- > > > > This is the Short arrangement of both trichotomies of interpretants. It > disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De Tienne) and a > sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each other according to the > mature division of the sciences. From a sign type perspective Shorts > approach makes sense: Each sign has an element of feeling of action and of > thought, but from a processual approach it is better to apply Ockham’s > razor in order to find the system behind processes of interpretation. > Peirce paved the way for that by his notion of involvement. The logical > note books are key, in combination with Shorts (or Stampers implied) > criticism of Peirce’s focus on scientific progress in developing a theory > of interpretation. (Cf personal, scientific and practical needs that > govern comunication). > > > > Best, Auke van Breemen >
----------------------------- 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 .
