I'd agree that what Auke is outlining is a very important area of
discussion - namely, the nature of the Interpretants in the semiosic
process.
We each have different areas of interest - from the terminological
to the linguistic to mathematics..etc. My particular interest is in
the evolutionary and adaptive capacities of mind/matter within the
real world of biology and societal systems. I consider such actions
to be carried out within the Peircean semiosic framework.
Evolutionary adaptation, takes place within complex - not simple -
interactions, and this requires both stability of type
[habits/Thirdness] and also, a high degree of freedom in non-linear
dynamics; i.e., in processing multiple inputs of data from diverse
sources. This requires, I think, a complex interpretive process that
can develop complexity of habits and morphologies from what appear to
be simple even unrelated local interactions. It requires different
phases of information processing where a system can switch between
various 'information input contents' [decide which is relevant; which
is noise] and move rapidly to interact and adapt to the real world.
Therefore, I think it is constructive to consider that Peirce's
multiple terms for this - what I see as a very complex process of
interpretation - are not just substitute terms 'for a simple
three-step interpretive process' - but are outlines of a wide ranging
complex interpretive infrastructure that actually enables life to
exist as adaptive and robust.
Edwina
-----------------------------
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 .
