Helmut - with regard to the word 'Interpreter' - that's a direct
quote from Peirce.
And after all, in his reference to a Quasi-mind, Peirce refers to
an 'utterer' and an interpreter..."there can be no isolated sign.
Moreover, signs require at least two Quasi-minds; a quasi-utterer and
a Quasi-interpreter; and although the two are at one [i.e., are one
mind] in the sign itself, they must nevertheless be distinct. In the
Sign they are, so to say, welded. Accordingly, it is not merely a
fact of human Psychology, but a necessity of Logic, that every
logical evolution of thought should be dialogic" 4.551.
That is - semiosis is a Relational process; it is interactional
[there can be no isolated sign] ...I read the above that, in a
dialogue of at least two agents, an utterer and an interpreter...even
if they agree on the interpretation [and are of 'one mind']...the
requirement for relation, for interaction...is vital.
As for 'networking' - heh - I can't help you out with your bias
against the term - but - think of it as interaction, as
interconnections, as free links, and necessary links - and optional
links - and so on.
Edwina
On Fri 02/03/18 4:09 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, List, you have introduced two things: The interpreter,
and a network. Interpreter: I had thought, that Peirce´s theory does
not require identifying an interpreter. Network: I aways had taken
this term for a mechanistic metaphor Silicon Valley nerds use to
replace with algorhithms things they do not understand. But sorry! I
admit allergy against certain terms: My problem only, don´t take
offence! Best, Helmut Freitag, 02. März 2018 um 21:49 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
Jon, list,
1] My problem with your terms is that you use 'sign' to refer only
to the mediate node in the semiosic triad; the Representamen. Where
and how does the triad enter into your understanding of semiosis?
2. I understand the term of 'symbol' to refer to the Relation
between the Representamen and the Dynamic Object, such that this
Relation sets up a triadic semiosic process of conceptualization:
i.e., "In respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I
divide signs into Icons, Indices and Symbols" 8.335. .
..."I define a Symbol as a sign which is determined by its dynamic
objects only in the sense that it will be so interpreted. It thus
depends either upon a convention, a habit, or a natural disposition
of its interpretant or of the field of its interpretant 8.335...
and thus - the Relation between the Representamen and the DO is in a
mode of Thirdness and the Representamen in such an interaction
functions within Thirdness - as a Legisign. That is - I see the
Symbol as a Relational function of the triad, not as an integral
component of the 'Sign/representamen'.
3. I don't read the Interpretant section the same way as you do.
There are three Interpretants: Immediate, Dynamic and Final. IF, in
the terms you use, the Sign is that mediate node in the O-R-I
semiosic triad, then - none of the three Interpretants can be that
mediate process.
Peirce says" that I have already noted that a Sign has an Object and
an Interpretant, the latter being that which the Sign produces in the
Quasi-mind that is the Interpreter by determining the latter to a
feeling, to an exertion, or to a Sign, which determination is the
Interpretant" (CP 4.536; 1906).
I read the above that the Quasi-mind is the INTERPRETER. Not the
Interpretant. And the semiosic process that is ongoing via the
interaction between the Dynamic Object-Immediate
Object-Representamen...is producing in 'the
Quasi-mind/Interpreter....a feeling. Or an action/exertion. Or -
Thirdness/a concept...all of which can be expressed as 'the
Interpretant'.
4. And I read this differently from you: " For any set of Signs
which are so connected that a complex of two of them can have one
interpretant, must be Determinations of one Sign which is a
Quasi-mind" (CP 4.550; 1906).
I read it as a network of triads - where at least two of them have
one Interpretant - i.e., their 'actual effects are in effective
interconnection' 4.550ff -
The result of the semiosic process among a number of
Agents/Interpreters.... , the Dynamic Interpretant - are connected.
This relates to [a] a shared mediate Representamen such that the
Interpretants are all 'determinations of a common Representamen -
and a shared Mind, i.e., a Quasi-mind among all networked
agents/Interpreters in this semiosic interconnection.
Edwina
On Fri 02/03/18 3:04 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent: Edwina, List: 1. Please read more carefully--I stated that
all concepts are Symbols, not that all Signs are Symbols. Obviously
Icons and Indices are also Signs. 2. Peirce explicitly
distinguished three kinds of Interpretants, only one of which is a
Sign. "I have already noted that a Sign has an Object and an
Interpretant, the latter being that which the Sign produces in the
Quasi-mind that is the Interpreter by determining the latter to a
feeling, to an exertion, or to a Sign, which determination is the
Interpretant" (CP 4.536; 1906). 3. Peirce explicitly defined a
Quasi-mind as a Sign that is a complex of Signs. "For any set of
Signs which are so connected that a complex of two of them can have
one interpretant, must be Determinations of one Sign which is a
Quasi-mind" (CP 4.550; 1906). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt -
Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher,
Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:35 PM,
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, Gary R, List - and here is, as I view it, a problem.
1] Notice that JAS seems to be confining the definition [and
function?] of a 'Sign' to a 'symbol', in other words, to Thirdness.
But is this accurate? Or is this term of symbol applied only to
'concepts'; i.e.,to the intellectual results of semiosis? [NOTE: I
would agree with this last sentence since I view the symbol as
confined to human semiosis] ]
[and I am assuming that JAS refers only to the mediate aspect of
the triad of O-R-I, where he uses 'Sign' to refer to that mediate R].
2] The next point is that the Interpretant can be 'a Sign'...but
need not be; it can also b a feeling or an exertion'. That is, it can
also function within the mode of Firstness or Secondness. But aren't
semiosic triads functioning in these other modes also Signs? Or does
JAS hold the view that only an interaction in Thirdness qualifies as
a 'Sign'?
3] I simply don't see how a quasi-mind is, "a Quasi-mind is a Sign
which is a complex of Signs". After all, one could say the same about
Mind. I see the Quasi-Mind as a local and individual articulation of
the more general non-individual and non-local Mind which underlies
all semiosis. I don't see how it can be a Sign - understanding Sign
as DO-[IO-R-II]. Or even, as the mediate node in the triad of O-R-I.
I could see it as this mediate node If and Only If it is expressing an
individual and local articulation of semiosic interactions -
interactions and information which are specific to that local and
individual agent.
4] And I agree with Gary R to be cautious of 'sharp distinctions'
which, I feel, operate only in the abstract but go against the
dynamic relational nature of Peircean semiosis - which requires, I
think, constant networking and filiations with other nodes.
Edwina
On Fri 02/03/18 2:14 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent: Garys, List: Two quick clarifications. 1. My point about
concepts is that they are Signs, specifically Symbols, while
Immediate Objects are parts or aspects of Signs. Hence every concept
has an Immediate Object, but no Immediate Object is (by itself) a
concept. 2. The Interpretant can be itself a Sign, but need not
be; it can also be a feeling or an exertion. Regards, Jon S.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Gary f, Jon S, list, I haven't much more to offer beyond but what
Jon has already written, so I'll keep this brief. Gary f asked:
Q: Are we assuming here that the perfect Sign is an accretion of
Signs in a Quasi-mind?
I would make no such assumption. At the moment all I'm assuming is
that the perfect Sign (the nature of which I am not yet clear on) and
a Quasi-sign are not the same, and that whatever the perfect Sign
turns out to be that it does not mean that the Object can be
completely represented. I'd suggested that it may represent some kind
of asymptotic Ideal of representation, while Jon's quoting Peirce to
the effect that a perfect Sign is "the aggregate formed by a sign
and all the signs which its occurrence carries with it" makes me less
certain of that initial interpretation. I'd reiterate that what Jon
and I do agree on is that a Quasi-mind is a Sign which is a complex
of Signs and, as I conjectured, perhaps the prerequisite of all
semiosis.
Q: Are we assuming that the Immediate Object includes (or can
include) attributes of the Dynamic Object? (Why?) If we do, then the
Immediate Object sounds like a concept — as, for example, your
concept of a woman includes attributes of the woman you are talking
about right now. Do you think of an Immediate Object as a concept or
like a concept? Jon and I agree, as he wrote, that "the Dynamic
Object determines the Sign with respect to some, but not all , of
its characters or qualities; and that partial combination of
attributes is the Immediate Object, the Form that the Sign
communicates." I am less certain that I would distinguish the IO
from the R as completely as Jon seems to do in writing " Only the
Sign itself --not its Immediate Object--can be a concept (Symbol)
that unites Matter (denotation) and Form (signification) in its
Interpretant (determination)." This hard distinction of the IO from
the R and I seems to me to leave the "partial combination of
attributes" floating in some literally in-significate realm.
Furthermore, the Interpretant is itself a Sign, so too sharp a
distinction in that direction is also, for me, problematic. This
discussion has gotten me rethinking just how completely we ought
distinguish IO-R-I except, perhaps, for the purposes of certain
rather abstract analyses since, at the moment, such hard distinctions
seem to me to break the continuity of semiosis. In short, the Form
which the Sign communicates seems to me not to be fully distinct from
it.
Q: By “Dynamic Object” do you mean an existing thing in reaction
with another existing thing? If so, why use a term that is defined
only as a correlate of a triadic relation? I agree with Jon that
"it would be better to substitute 'Thing' for 'Dynamic Object' when
discussing dyadic reaction." I'm sure that both Jon and I would be
interested in your response to our answers to your questions, Gary. In
particular I'm wondering what your understanding of the nature of the
Immediate Object is.
Best,
Gary R Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New
York 718 482-5690
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [3] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
