Gary F., List: I have trouble translating Peirce's assignments of the two Objects and three Interpretants in these two specific examples into coherent and mutually compatible definitions for them. Obviously one possible explanation for this is that I simply do not correctly understand his theory of semeiotic. As we have noted before, our learning styles and ways of thinking are evidently quite different--I seek a single definition for each term, such that they all fit together within a comprehensive model. My objective is to integrate everything in a way that makes sense to me, and then try to explain it in a way that makes sense to others; but since Peirce himself offered different and sometimes conflicting definitions, others will always be able to quibble with any such model and cite him to bolster their case.
I am also not content to leave certain questions open just because Peirce did. As Gary R. has noted, he fully expected his successors to go well beyond the groundwork that he laid as "a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman" (EP 2:413; 1907). While there is indeed disagreement among Peirce scholars about how to reconcile the various names and trichotomies of Interpretants, I do not recall ever coming across a single passage in his own writings where he indicated that there are more than three. Are you aware of any? I tried to explain my initial reasoning with an example, and then with a diagram (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-03/msg00191/ Semiosis.jpg). Were you also unable to follow *that* reasoning? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ }{ *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 .
