Stephen, Jon, Gary f, list, Stephen wrote: "Any talk of signs would benefit from the use of examples."
I agree. Perhaps we could revisit the example Gary f offered a few weeks back. I haven't time to find it now, but as I recall it's in a letter to William James. In it Peirce is describing the weather to his wife in semeiotic terms, notably in terms of Interpretants. But perhaps this isn't the best optimal for the topic of this thread. For example, Gary f asked: GF: Are you assuming (or are you convinced) that the *Intentional/Effectual/Communicational *trichotomy of interpretants differs *in name only* from the *Immediate/Dynamical/Final *trichotomy? Are there really only three interpretants, not six or more? The weather example Peirce employs is, as I recall, the second trichotomy above. There's been a great deal of analysis of the question as to the number of Interpretants over the years (decades), much of it in published form (*Transactions* has published any number of articles on the topic). Btw, my own answer to Gary f's question is that it seems to me that there are but three Interpretants and that Peirce deepened his conception of the three and modified his terminology to express his evolved understanding. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > Any talk of signs would benefit from the use of examples. Otherwise, you > are constructing hypotheticals with no possibility of arriving at an > expressive or actionable result. There's a big world out there. Semiosis > has to do with all, everything, as I understand it. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:50 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon, >> >> OK, I think I can follow your reasoning, though I don’t find it >> persuasive. It implies that there is no such thing as an *intended >> interpretant* of any given sign, if that means an interpretant intended >> by the utterer. This makes me wonder what Peirce could possibly be >> referring to as “the Influence the Sign is *intended* to exert" (R >> 339:424[285r]” (quoted in your earlier message), if neither Seme nor Pheme >> nor Delome can have an intended interpretant. >> >> Are you assuming (or are you convinced) that the >> *Intentional/Effectual/Communicational >> *trichotomy of interpretants differs *in name only* from the >> *Immediate/Dynamical/Final >> *trichotomy? Are there really only three interpretants, not six or more? >> >> Gary f. >> >> >> >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* 20-Mar-18 16:33 >> *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants >> >> >> >> Garys, List: >> >> >> >> GR: When you say that the Dynamic Object determines the Sign, what part >> does the Immediate Object play in that determination? I am for now assuming >> that it is the Form which the Sign will represent. Can one say that the >> Dynamic Object determines the Immediate Object which determines the Sign? >> That, at least, has been my understanding. >> >> >> >> Peirce consistently held that the Object determines the Sign, which >> determines the Interpretant. When he expanded his analysis to two Objects >> (and three Interpretants), he indeed indicated that the Dynamic Object >> determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign; but keep in >> mind that the Immediate Object is *internal *to the Sign. My current >> proposal is that the Dynamic Object is the Matter that the Sign denotes, >> while the Immediate Object is the Form that the Sign signifies--as I have >> put it previously, a partial combination of attributes of the Dynamic >> Object that render it recognizable to an interpreting Quasi-mind with the >> appropriate Collateral Experience. Does that answer your questions? >> >> >> >> GF: Jon, one question re your statement: “… he had defined the >> Intentional Interpretant as "a determination of the mind of the utterer" >> (SS 196, EP 2:478). Apparently he realized that, as such, it obviously >> *cannot >> *be an Interpretant of the Sign that the utterer is *currently *uttering >> …” Why not? >> >> >> >> Because any Interpretant is always a determination of the Quasi-mind that >> *interprets >> *a given Sign, never the Quasi-mind that *utters *it--even when these >> are temporally successive versions of the *same *Quasi-mind. Again, the >> essential ingredient of the utterer is the Object, while the essential >> ingredient of the interpreter is the Interpretant; and in Peirce's words ... >> >> >> >> CSP: In its relation to the Object, the Sign is *passive*; that is to >> say, its correspondence to the Object is brought about by an effect upon >> the Sign, the Object remaining unaffected. On the other hand, in its >> relation to the Interpretant the Sign is *active*, determining the >> Interpretant without being itself thereby affected. (EP 2:544n22; 1906) >> >> >> >> A Sign cannot affect its utterer, since it cannot affect its Object; but >> it can and does affect its interpreter, precisely by determining its >> Interpretant *in that Quasi-mind*. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jon, list, >> >> >> >> Thanks for this very helpful analysis of the three interpretants of >> Peirce's late semeiotic. My first impression is, from what I can grasp of >> it, that it seems correct and complete, a succinct and subtle analysis. But >> I'll want to study it further as there are some points which are still a >> bit unclear to me, for example: >> >> >> >> JA: The essential ingredient of the utterer is the Dynamic Object, which >> determines the Sign; that of the interpreter is the Dynamic Interpretant, >> which the Sign determines; and that of the Commens is the Sign itself, >> which welds the utterer and interpreter into one Quasi-mind (cf. CP >> 4.551). >> >> >> >> When you say that the Dynamic Object determines the Sign, what part does >> the Immediate Object play in that determination? I am for now assuming that >> it is the Form which the Sign *will *represent. Can one say that the >> Dynamic Object determines the Immediate Object which determines the Sign? >> That, at least, has been my understanding. >> >> >> >> In any event, your analysis should allow semioticians interested in this >> aspect of Peirce's late semiotic to get a handle on it sufficient to >> springboard into further analysis. This is, of course, not to suggest that >> it may not need some correction (or at least tweaking), but for me for now >> it makes more sense of the three interpretants than anything else I've read >> in years. And, again, that it does it succinctly is in my mind a definite >> virtue (esp. for the purposes of study). >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> >> *Communication Studies* >> >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> >> *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jon, one question re your statement: “… he had defined the Intentional >> Interpretant as "a determination of the mind of the utterer" (SS 196, EP >> 2:478). Apparently he realized that, as such, it obviously *cannot* be >> an Interpretant of the Sign that the utterer is *currently* uttering …” >> >> Why not? >> >> Gary f. >> >> } We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us. [Tagore] { >> >> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
