Jon, list:
And I continue puzzling over your statement below:
JAS: "Suppose that Quasi-mind A utters Sign Y, which determines Quasi-mind B to a further Sign Z as its Effectual or Dynamic Interpretant. The Communicational Interpretant of Sign Y is simply its Immediate Interpretant--the Form that Sign Y communicates from Quasi-mind A to Quasi-mind B as a determination of their overlap, the Commens (A ∩ B). The Intended or Intentional Interpretant is Sign X, the preceding determination of Quasi-mind A by the same Dynamic Object, such that Sign Y is the Dynamic Interpretant of Sign X. Let me also tentatively suggest that the Immediate Interpretant of Sign X serves as the Immediate Object of Sign Y, and the Immediate Interpretant of Sign Y serves as the Immediate Object of Sign Z."
1] Could we dispense with the Quasi-Mind term and simply say: Person A, Person B. We can assume that both have a mind.
2] My first confusion comes - immediately. What do you mean by Sign Y? Do you mean what I term the Representamen? Or do you mean the triad of [IO-R-II]? Or do you mean the Peircean simple: O-R-I? For example, the person utters a spontaneous cry: STOP! This is a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
I view this triad, in this example: functioning as a Dynamic Object shouted by Person A. Person B hears it...as [IO-R-II]. And, he may stop [DI].
3] But you don't say it like this so I'm unsure of YOUR meaning. Do you mean that the DI is ALSO a (a) Representamen; or a triad [IO-R-II]? Or do you mean that the original shout of STOP which I see as functioning as a DO in Person A, has become a DI in Person B?
4] Sorry- but the next half of your paragraph is too convoluted for me to figure out. You've added a set of Signs, eg, X, which you say is an Interpretant of a previous Dynamic Object.....and..Z and...it gets too muddy for me to deal with.
How can an 'Immediate Interpretant of Sign Y serves as the Immediate Object of Sign Z". How can two internal Signs be interactive without the work of a Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant - which moves the internal to the external??????
Edwina
On Tue 20/03/18 9:42 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent:
Gary F., List:On the contrary, it merely implies that the Intentional Interpretant of a given Sign is not determined by that Sign itself, but by the Signs that come before it in the uttering Quasi-mind; and I am assuming, along the same lines as Gary R., that each Sign is determined by exactly two Objects and determines exactly three Interpretants, but I am still trying to sort out the latter. Perhaps an abstract example of what I am proposing, rather than a concrete one, will be helpful for keeping everything straight.Suppose that Quasi-mind A utters Sign Y, which determines Quasi-mind B to a further Sign Z as its Effectual or Dynamic Interpretant. The Communicational Interpretant of Sign Y is simply its Immediate Interpretant--the Form that Sign Y communicates from Quasi-mind A to Quasi-mind B as a determination of their overlap, the Commens (A ∩ B). The Intended or Intentional Interpretant is Sign X, the preceding determination of Quasi-mind A by the same Dynamic Object, such that Sign Y is the Dynamic Interpretant of Sign X. Let me also tentatively suggest that the Immediate Interpretant of Sign X serves as the Immediate Object of Sign Y, and the Immediate Interpretant of Sign Y serves as the Immediate Object of Sign Z.The continuity of semiosis is thus once again evident here. No matter how long or short the interval of time that we posit from start to finish, there is an inexhaustible continuum of Signs "beginning" at the Dynamic Object (what they all denote) and "terminating" (in this particular analysis) in Sign X, whose actual effect on Quasi-mind A is Sign Y, whose actual effect on Quasi-mind B is Sign Z--and the process keeps going from there. Each of these Signs, as "a Medium for the communication of a Form" (EP 2:544n22; 1906), takes its predecessor's Immediate Interpretant (the Form communicated by that Sign) as its own Immediate Object (the Form signified by this Sign).Peirce's theorem of "the science of semeiotics" is also relevant--"if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign" (R 1476:36[5-1/2]; c. 1904). That is precisely why every Quasi-mind "is itself a sign, a determinable sign" (SS 195; 1906); it is the system that results from the connection of all of the Signs that have previously determined it. Sign X is the Intentional Interpretant of Sign Y, but it is not determined by Sign Y; it is determined by the complex of Signs that constitutes the utterer, Quasi-mind A. "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).Notice that I have not said anything yet about the Final Interpretant of Sign Y. Is it the same as the Intentional Interpretant? This would entail that, contrary to everything that I have ever read by Peirce and others, the Final Interpretant determines the Sign itself. On the other hand, it clearly does have a purposive or intentional aspect, based on how Peirce labeled the divisions associated with it in his late taxonomies. Is it perhaps a clue that he called it the Eventual Interpretant in 1906 and (at least arguably) the Destinate Interpretant in 1908? This warrants its own discussion once we are ready to move on from the current one.Regards,Jon S.On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:50 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.
----------------------------- 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 .
