Auke, List:
As I explained at some length, my current view is as follows.
- The intentional interpretant is:
- the dynamical interpretant of a *previous *sign token with the same
dynamical object, because it is a determination of the mind of
the utterer.
- the final interpretant of *this* sign token, because it is its
*intended* effect and thus the effect that it *would *have under
ideal circumstances.
- The effectual interpretant is the dynamical interpretant, because
it is a determination of the mind of the interpreter; i.e., the sign's
*actual* effect.
- The communicational interpretant is the immediate interpretant,
because it is a determination of the commens and therefore *internal* to
the sign.
More to come in the other thread.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:00 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Of lately I work with webmail and that puts in another adress. So, with
> delay my response to Jon Alan.
>
> ---------- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----------
> Van: Auke van Breemen <[email protected]>
> Aan: Peirce-L <[email protected]>
> Datum: 27 april 2020 om 10:30
> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
>
> Jon Alen,
>
> You wrote: Thanks for confirming that Peirce identified *exactly three*
> interpretants in the quoted passage.
>
> --
>
> Since interpretants always come in triples, This is no wonder, at the
> least we might expect a triple of triples. I object against your
> rethorics. Suggesting that the count counts .....
>
> I see that you didn't do your substitution in:
>
> There is the Intentional Interpretant, the Effectual Interpretant,
> and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant.
>
> It has to be done before we can proceed.
>
> It is a sign, it has its immediate and dynamical object. After the
> substitution is done we compare the immediate and dynamical objects
> suggested by the dictionary meaning of the terms. After that we know
> whether only three interpretants, i.e. immediate, dynamical and normal is a
> feasible option. I predict it is not.
>
> Thanks beforehand,
>
> 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 .
