JAS, List,
As propositions the three sentences may be the same sign, but here clearly we are arguing as logicians about terms and propositions. From a logical perspective we can abstract from the apprehension of the sign as an object. Not so if we treat the proposition semiotically as it functions in different interpretation processes. Accordingly, when I say that Existential Graphs put before us moving pictures of thought, I mean of thought in its essence free from physiological and other accidents. CP 4.8 1905 It is the purified view of the logician, exemplified by the above remark on the Existential graphs, that enables Peirce to hold that: It seems best to regard a sign as a determination of a quasi-mind; for if we regard it as an outward object, and as addressing itself to a human mind, that mind must _rst apprehend it as an object in itself, and only after that consider it in its signi_cance; and the like must happen if the sign addresses itself to any quasi-mind. It must begin by forming a determination of that quasi-mind, and nothing will be lost by regarding that determination as the sign.14 EP 2 p.391 1906 Best, Auke van Breemen Van: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Verzonden: vrijdag 25 januari 2019 23:09 Aan: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, Tokens, Instances Jerry C., List: JLRC: These three sentence have three different meaning if one takes the propositional logic of punctuation seriously. I agree, as three different Tokens they produce three different Dynamic Interpretants; yet Peirce clearly affirmed that they are all the same proposition, the same Sign, and thus presumably have the same Final Interpretant. Do they have three different Immediate Interpretants? Are they three different Instances of the same Type, or single Instances of three different Types? JAS: I trust that the reader can imagine how these three sentences would also sound quite different when spoken, rather than written. JLRC: Certainly not this reader! Really? If you were to read them aloud, there would be no difference at all in how you spoke each sentence? JLRC: The differences that makes a difference in these three sentences are semes at the end that are very meaningful. Again, at the moment I am tentatively inclined to treat those punctuation marks as different Tones that accompany three different Instances of the same Type, rather than additional Semes that make them three different Types. However, I am open to being persuaded otherwise. JLRC: The meanings of the spoken forms depends on the context of the entire situation, especially the tone of voice and interpersonal relationships so it is hardly relevant to the semiotic interpretations of the alphabetic forms. I agree, which is one reason why I believe that the spoken forms are different Types of the same Sign. 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 Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:25 PM Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > wrote: List, Jon On Jan 25, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: How should we characterize these various ways of uttering the same Proposition? For example ... * We are going to the restaurant. * We are going to the restaurant? * We are going to the restaurant! These three sentence have three different meaning if one takes the propositional logic of punctuation seriously. The only change here is the punctuation at the end, but I trust that the reader can imagine how these three sentences would also sound quite different when spoken, rather than written. Certainly not this reader! The differences that makes a difference in these three sentences are semes at the end that are very meaningful. The meanings of the spoken forms depends on the context of the entire situation, especially the tone of voice and interpersonal relationships so it is hardly relevant to the semiotic interpretations of the alphabetic forms. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
