Jon,
In that 1909 letter to James, Peirce is using examples of signs to give James
an idea of what he means by “sign”, “object,” “interpretant” and how he
distinguishes between subtypes of them. I read it by applying those terms to
those examples (and more generally to those types of signs). What more “light”
is needed? I don’t know what you mean by “making heads or tails” of it. Maybe
that’s why I can’t make heads or tails of your reasoning.
One of the questions Peirce left open is the one I asked you, whether the
different trichotomies of interpretants differ in identity or in name only. (At
least, I know there is disagreement among Peircean scholars on that point, and
I don’t know of any text where Peirce directly answers that question.) As far
as I can tell, you are proceeding on the assumption that there are only three
interpretants despite the plethora of names for them, and trying to come up a
meta-schema that will sort out the names by reducing them to three concepts. I
see no need to do that, and I’m stymied by your hypotheses because I see no way
to evaluate them inductively. Anyway, if I could follow your reasoning, I
wouldn’t be getting its implications wrong, as you say I did.
Gary f.
} Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can
go. [T.S. Eliot] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: 21-Mar-18 10:15
To: Peirce-L <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants
Gary F.: Which aspects of my reasoning are you unable to follow? Which
questions in this context do you think that Peirce left open? In all honesty,
I have never been able to make heads or tails of Peirce's example that you
quoted, so I would be grateful if you and/or others could shed some light on it.
Edwina: Immediate Objects and Immediate Interpretants are internal to Signs,
so talking about "the Immediate Object of Person A" and "the Immediate
Interpretant of Person B" fosters confusion, rather than clarity--especially
since Quasi-mind A and Quasi-mind B might be temporally successive versions of
the same Quasi-mind (or Person). Nothing that I have said "nullifies the
mediative role and function of the Representamen"; on the contrary, the whole
point is that the Sign serves as "a Medium for the communication of a Form" (EP
2:544n22; 1906) from Quasi-mind A to Quasi-mind B. I do not know what you mean
by "the individual closure of the triadic Sign itself" or "the existential
nature of the Dynamic Object," but I suspect that those comments once again
simply reflect the fact that our models of semiosis are very different. As for
the "possibility of cognitive difference between Person A and B"--if they are
two different Quasi-minds, then they are obviously different by virtue of
having been determined by different previous Signs; and if they are temporally
successive versions of the same Quasi-mind, then they are obviously different
by virtue of adding Sign Z as the Dynamic Interpretant of Sign Y.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:02 AM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
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.
-----------------------------
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 .
