List: Gary R. and I had an off-List exchange yesterday, and we both wished afterwards that portions of it had been on-List. See below for the edited version.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary: > > I agree that defining boundaries (or a "threshold") for semiosis is "very > tricky stuff." That is why I have recently sought to boil it down to a > (relatively) simple, single instance, rather than tackling bigger questions > like the ones that you are raising. > > Where does Lane discuss the "would-be" in analyzing Peirce's "extreme > realism"? His new book, perhaps? Maybe I should request it through > Interlibrary Loan. > > My long-term objective in all of this remains to understand how semeiotic > may be defined as the science of the laws of the stable establishment of > habits (cf. CP 3.429; 1896). That includes the inveterate habits of > matter, as well as the self-controlled habits of Persons. My NA essay > addresses many of the cosmological aspects, and now I am wrestling with the > ontological ones. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon, >> >> You wrote: I considered responding to your earlier reply to Jeff about >> the example of the ripples on the water, if that is what you had in mind. >> The status of a potential Sign is tricky, since--as I said in my own reply >> to Jeff--*semiosis *does not occur until a Sign *actually *determines an >> Interpretant. >> >> Take, for simplicity's sake, the case of the book that was uncovered >> after 100s of years. Certainly there was much semiosis happening around the >> very creation of that book, the Sign (the book) had already *actually* >> determined perhaps many an Interpretant including those of its author and >> perhaps colleagues and others who had read it. The case of ripples on the >> water is trickier, while my hypothetical example of the naturalist setting >> up cameras around the lake merely sidesteps the issue. Still, the ripples >> were eventually interpreted, and to say that there was no semiosis before >> then, well, I think it's more like the creation of the book just mentioned >> (and who knows if certain woodland creatures don't interpret >> ripples--perhaps otters or beavers--in some way?) All very tricky stuff in >> my thinking. >> >> JAS: I used to think (with Short) that the interpretability of a Sign >> corresponds to its *Immediate *Interpretant, but lately I am more >> inclined to associate it with the *Final* Interpretant based on Peirce's >> statement, "If a sign has no interpreter, its interpretant is a 'would be,' >> i.e., is what it would determine in the interpreter if there were one" (EP >> 2:409; 1907). >> >> Robert Lane makes a great deal of the "would be" in analyzing Peirce's >> "extreme realism." These would-be's are in that more fully developed >> metaphysical view *real*, just as the diamond example (reconsidered by >> Peirce later in his career) would really be a diamond *if* it were ever >> uncovered (like the book example above, perhaps like the sign that is the >> rippling of the water). In the earlier version of the diamond example >> Peirce gives it no ontological status, brackets it, or better, suspends it >> in a kind of metaphysical limbo, until (if) it is actually uncovered (and, >> say, can be tested). But in his later correction of this view he says that, >> as a would-be, it really always-already has all the characters that a >> diamond has, and so it is real even uncovered. So, I guess I'm saying that >> this may parallel the reality of signs which are not (yet) interpreted, but >> have the potential to be. I'm certain that semiosis did occur before the >> book was discovered; I'm less certain about the ripples on the lake. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *718 482-5690* >> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Gary: >>> >>> I considered responding to your earlier reply to Jeff about the example >>> of the ripples on the water, if that is what you had in mind. The status >>> of a potential Sign is tricky, since--as I said in my own reply to >>> Jeff--*semiosis >>> *does not occur until a Sign *actually *determines an Interpretant. I >>> used to think (with Short) that the interpretability of a Sign corresponds >>> to its *Immediate *Interpretant, but lately I am more inclined to >>> associate it with the *Final* Interpretant based on Peirce's statement, >>> "If a sign has no interpreter, its interpretant is a 'would be,' i.e., is >>> what it would determine in the interpreter if there were one" (EP 2:409; >>> 1907). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
