Francesco, Jon S., Robert, List,
The list Robert has compiled contains an entry that bears on the question of how we might understand the character of the immediate object. The entry the 40th in the list, and it is from MS 318, Pragmatism (1907). I am now prepared to risk an attempt at defining a sign, --since in scientific inquiry, as in other enterprises, the maxim holds: nothing hazard, nothing gain. I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined by the object relatively to the interpretant, and determining the interpretant in reference to the object, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this "sign". The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign. Moreover, the sign being defined in terms of these correlative correlates, it is confidently to be expected that object and interpretant should precisely correspond, each to the other. In point of fact, we do find that the immediate object and emotional interpretant correspond, both being apprehensions, or are "subjective"; both, too, pertain to all signs without exception. The real object and energetic interpretant also correspond, both being real facts or things. But to our surprise, we find that the logical interpretant does not correspond with any kind of object. This defect of correspondence between object and interpretant must be rooted in the essential difference there is between the nature of an object and that of an interpretant; which difference is that former antecedes while the latter succeeds. The logical interpretant must, therefore, be in a relatively future tense. The relevant passage is the one where he says of the immediate object and the emotional interpretant that "both, too, pertain to all signs without exception." This seems to suggest that any sign that involves the apprehension of an object does so in virtue of its having a relation to an immediate object. While some external signs may not, at some point in time, be apprehended by an interpreter, all are capable of being so apprehended. This suggests that all signs have an immediate object--at least as a possible sort of thing--even if the object is not actually apprehended at some given time. When the sign of any type is interpreted in actu, it will come to be apprehended in this way--and the immediate object appears to be essential for the interpretation of every sign. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________________________________ From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 11:13:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign classification Robert, List: How can our understanding of the different correlates be "superfluous" to the classification of Signs accordingly? For one thing, the internal/external distinction helps explain why there are additional trichotomies for the (external) relations between the Sign and the Dynamic Object/Interpretant, but not the (internal) relations between the Sign and the Immediate Object/Interpretant. Again, why did Peirce divide Signs according to the Mode of Presentation of the internal correlates vs. the Mode of Being of the external correlates, if he did not consider both of these distinctions to be noteworthy and perhaps connected? I have come across your "76 Definitions" in the past, but have not reviewed it recently. I agree that many of the editorial choices for CP were unfortunate, and wish that the Peirce Edition Project had made much better progress to date at publishing the Writings in chronological order. As for your animation, it reflects the notion of infinite semiosis, although it only proceeds forward rather than also reaching backward. My understanding of Peirce's late view is that he came to recognize the termination of semiosis upon the production of a feeling or effort as the Dynamic Interpretant, rather than another Sign, or a habit or habit-change as the ultimate Logical Interpretant. Regards, 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 Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Would you agree that these internal vs. external distinctions (which I readily admit) are superfluous with regard to the classification of signs? It is a necessary condition to continue the debate, it seems to me ... In addition, do you know my thesaurus http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM ?<http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM> Having made this work (which seemed to me absolutely necessary to avoid the bias of the arbitrary choices made by the editors of the CP , with in addition an anarchic chronological dispersion of the items) I am engaged me in a kind of linear regression by the method of the least squares, a good metaphor for me to describe one "method of the least gaps with the thinking of the master". I made an animated gif which expresses my choices globally ... it dynamically represents semiosis with successive triads ad infinitum ; it can be complicated by introducing the 2 objects and the 3 interpretants : http://semiotiquedure.online/images/sch038.gif do you think it is compatible with your own choices? Best Regards, Robert Marty
----------------------------- 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 .
