Auke, List: How many different interpretants does Peirce identify in the passage quoted below (EP 2:478, 1906)? Does he mention any additional interpretants in that particular letter? Are there any manuscripts whatsoever where Peirce explicitly identifies more than three interpretants in the same analysis? If not, why conclude that there are more than three, just because he uses different names in different lists of exactly three? How is this more justified than viewing Peirce as experimenting over time with different names for the same three interpretants? Note that these are questions, not assertions; I am inviting *persuasion* that Auke's approach is more warranted than mine. On the other hand, all the recent List discussions were initially prompted by Robert Marty's paper introducing the podium diagram, which (based on the three categories) implies that one sign *must *have exactly two objects and exactly three interpretants. Where does such an analysis supposedly go wrong?
Besides, limiting the interpretants to exactly three is by no means a novel proposal. As long ago as 1993, Jorgen Dines Johansen stated in his book, *Dialogic Semiosis: An Essay on Signs and Meaning*, "The most important divisions of the interpretant are the immediate, the dynamical, and the final" (p. 173). He then aligned some of the alternative names accordingly--essential and intended with immediate; communicational, rational, and ultimate logical with final. Five years later, the editors of Volume 2 of *The Essential Peirce* similarly associated intentional, impressional, and initial with immediate; effectual, factual, middle, and dynamic with dynamical; and communicational, normal, habitual, and eventual with final (p. 555 n. 2). I disagree with a couple of these specific assignments, but the point is that it is quite common in the secondary literature to understand Peirce as having identified exactly three interpretants, while varying considerably in what he called them. Again, "the gamma part of semiotics" is an aspect of *Auke's *speculative grammar, not Peirce's own; just as the immediate object/interpretant pertaining to a type, the dynamical object/interpretant pertaining to a token, and the final interpretant pertaining to the sign itself are aspects of *my *speculative grammar, not Peirce's own. Nevertheless, our different speculative grammars are both recognizably *Peircean*. As with Robert, I sincerely appreciate Auke's scholarship--especially, as he mentions below, our mutual dedication to studying Peirce's unpublished texts--even though we have reached some different conclusions when it comes to the details. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 8:02 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary f., list, > > I understand to have hit on a great devide between groups of listers. As > far as JAS is concerned, I already indicated my objections, and I already > indicated that I value it highly that he took the trouble to seriously read > the unpublished pages. I seldom meet a person that, as I did, took the > trouble. > > I suggested already to look at this from a semiotical point of view: > > Well, this is nice meat for a semioticean. How is such a misunderstanding > possible? > > -- > > Curiously enough this example fits in nicely with the discussion about the > total number of interpretants Peirce distinguished. > > 1906|Letters to Lady Welby|EP 2:478 > > There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the > mind of the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination > of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or > say the Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that mind into which > the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any > communication should take place. This mind may be called the commens. It > consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and > interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question should > fulfill its function. > > --- > > Here we are in, what I call, the gamma part of semiotics. Demanding its > own identification of differences between interpretants. This cannot simply > be reduced to: immediate, normal and final interpretant. > > Auke >
----------------------------- 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 .
