I think I’m in agreement with what Auke says here, but would put it a little differently. My way of looking at this kind of problem in speculative grammar is this:
The triadicity of semiosic relations determines that in many (if not all) semiotic contexts, there will be exactly three interpretants, i.e. a trichotomy of them into a 1st, 2nd and 3rd categorially. Communication is one context, deductive reasoning is another, etc. These sets of three have a “family resemblance” to one another, but that doesn't guarantee that any one set can be exactly mapped onto another. I think the same goes for the two objects. In an earlier post i proposed that in an action-perception cycle such as one taking place in an animal with a complex (hierarchical) visual system, the Dynamic Object can be mapped onto the bottom-up stream of neural activity, while the Immediate Object can be mapped onto the top-down stream. But this only applies to a semiosic process going on in a single brain; there is no guarantee that it will match up exactly with the mapping we use in another semiotic context, such as communication between people. Gary f. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 30-Apr-20 06:46 To: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation Jon Alan, So, we need the intentional and effectual interprretants for the introduction of different minds, that is we need them in order to get semiotics from a terminological exercize into a semiotic study of communication. best, Auke Op 30 april 2020 om 2:48 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >: 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
----------------------------- 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 .
