Jeff, List: Again, my definition is intended as a summary based on Peirce's various descriptions of the immediate interpretant in his different writings. That said, I believe that it is compatible with the particular one that you quoted (CP 8.315, EP 2:500, 1909 Apr 1). The immediate interpretant is not any *actual *effect of the sign (reaction), but rather a *possible* effect of the sign (quality of impression) that a token is *fit* to produce by virtue of embodying a type as "a definitely significant Form" (CP 4.537, 1906).
Regarding the division into possible/existent/necessitant, as you mentioned it is not according to the nature or mode of being of the immediate interpretant, but rather its mode of *presentation*. The same is true of the immediate object, and I believe that this is because both these correlates are *internal* to the sign itself--the same reason why they have no distinct dyadic relations with the sign. With respect to the immediate object, classification is based on how the sign identifies what it denotes; and with respect to the immediate interpretant, it is based on how the sign conveys what it signifies. Peirce seems to have struggled with what to call the latter trichotomy of classes, proposing hypothetic/categorical/relative "with great hesitation" in his last complete taxonomy (EP 2:489, 1908 Dec 25). As I have noted before, these names pertain to three kinds of propositions, each having a different number of lines of identity when scribed in existential graphs (R 481:10, LF 1:290, 1896)--zero for hypothetical (in alpha), one for categorical, and two or more for relative. Consistent with my post in another thread about the immediate (communicational) interpretant being a determination of the commens, which corresponds to the phemic sheet, I suggest that this division reflects the *minimum* number of lines of identity required to *present* an unattributed term (zero), a complete proposition (one), and the premisses of an argument (two) in that system. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > How does your definition of the immediate interpretant compare to what > Peirce says in the following passage: "The Immediate Interpretant consists > in the *Quality *of the Impression that a sign is fit to produce, not to > any actual reaction"? (CP 8.315) > > JAS: The immediate interpretant is whatever a sign type *possibly could* > signify > within the system of signs to which it belongs, the dynamical interpretant > is whatever a sign token *actually does* signify on an individual > occasion, and the final interpretant is whatever a sign itself *necessarily > would* signify under ideal circumstances. > > Notice the three features that are highlighted in Peirce's account. The > immediate interpretant of a sign is: > > 1. a Quality > 2. of the Impression > 3. that a sign is *fit* to produce > > Let me try to frame a question. This account of the immediate interpretant > seems to accept the further division Peirce draws between the presentation > of immediate interpretants as possibles, existents and necessitants. How > does this division apply to your definition? > > Yours, > > Jeff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
