Jon, Gary R,
Evidently I was wrong to think that I can follow your reasoning, so
I’d better leave this thread to those who can follow it, or those
looking for more definitive answers to questions that Peirce left
open. What I can do is provide here a more complete quotation from the
letter to James (14 March 1909) that Gary mentioned, which includes
several examples, and may be of some further use in the discussion:
We must distinguish between the Immediate Object,—i.e., the Object
as represented in the sign,—and the Real (no, because perhaps the
Object is altogether fictive, I must choose a different term,
therefore), say rather the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of
things, the Sign _cannot_ express, which it can only _indicate_ and
leave the interpreter to find out by _collateral experience._ For
instance, I point my finger to what I mean, but I can't make my
companion know what I mean, if he can't see it, or if seeing it, it
does not, to his mind, separate itself from the surrounding objects in
the field of vision. It is useless to attempt to discuss the
genuineness and possession of a personality beneath the histrionic
presentation of Theodore Roosevelt with a person who recently has come
from Mars and never heard of Theodore before. A similar distinction
must be made as to the Interpretant. But in respect to _that_
Interpretant, the dichotomy is not enough by any means. For instance,
suppose I awake in the morning before my wife, and that afterwards she
wakes up and inquires, “What sort of a day is it?” _This_ is a
sign, whose Object, as expressed, is the weather at that time, but
whose Dynamical Object is the _impression which I have presumably
derived from peeping between the window-curtains._ Whose Interpretant,
as expressed, is the quality of the weather, but whose Dynamical
Interpretant, is _my answering her question._ But beyond that, there
is a _third_ Interpretant. The _Immediate Interpretant_ is what the
Question expresses, _all_ that it immediately expresses, which I have
imperfectly restated above. The _Dynamical Interpretant_ is the actual
effect that it has upon me, its interpreter. But the Significance of
it, the _Ultimate,_ or _Final, Interpretant_ is her _purpose_ in
asking it, what effect its answer will have as to her plans for the
ensuing day. I reply, let us suppose: “It is a stormy day.” Here
is another sign. Its _Immediate Object_ is the notion of the present
weather so far as this is common to her mind and mine,—not the
_character_ of it, but the _identity_ of it. The _Dynamical Object_ is
the _identity_ of the actual and _Real_ meteorological conditions at
the moment. The _Immediate Interpretant_ is the _schema_ in her
imagination, i.e. the vague Image or what there is in common to the
different Images of a stormy day. The _Dynamical Interpretant_ is the
disappointment or whatever actual effect it at once has upon her. The
_Final Interpretant_ is the sum of the _Lessons_ of the reply, Moral,
Scientific, etc. Now it is easy to see that my attempt to draw this
three-way, “trivialis,” distinction, relates to a real and
important three-way distinction, and yet that it is quite hazy and
needs a vast deal of study before it is rendered perfect. Lady Welby
has got hold of the same real distinction in her “Sense, Meaning,
Significance,” but conceives it as imperfectly as I do, but
imperfectly in other ways. Her _Sense_ is the _Impression_ made or
normally to be made. Her _Meaning_ is what is intended, its purpose.
Her _Significance_ is the real upshot. [EP2:498]
Gary f.
