Auke, List: That is my concise summary of my understanding of Peirce's opinion as expressed in his writings. I provided some supporting quotes in this same thread a few days ago, as follows (Robert, please forgive the repetition).
RM: A sign is always a real thing that represents because to be sign it must be perceived JAS: This assertion also directly contradicts Peirce's plain statement that "If a sign has no interpreter, its interpretant is a 'would be,' i.e., is what it *would* determine in the interpreter if there were one" (EP 2:409, 1907). Something need not be perceived in order to qualify as a sign, as long as it is *capable *of determining a dynamical interpretant by virtue of having an immediate interpretant, "its peculiar Interpretability before it gets any Interpreter" (SS 111, 1909), and a final interpretant, "the effect the Sign *would *produce upon any mind upon which circumstances should permit it to work out its full effect" (SS 110, 1909). In fact, several years earlier Peirce already seems to recognize that an *actual *interpretant is not necessary, instead repeatedly calling it merely "possible." CSP: A *Representamen *is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed its *Object*, and the *possible *Third Correlate being termed its *Interpretant*, by which triadic relation the *possible *Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some *possible *Interpretant. (CP , EP 2:290, 1903, bold added) Later he explicitly affirms that "there must be a sign without an utterer and a sign without an interpreter" (EP 2:404, 1907). Kinds of "signs without utterers" include "symptoms of disease, signs of the weather, groups of experiences serving as premisses, etc." "Signs without interpreters" include pictures woven by a Jacquard loom that catch fire and are "consumed before anyone can see them," "conditions and results" of experiments with model boats that are "automatically recorded" but "nobody takes the trouble to study," and "the books of a bank" when a balance sheet is not drawn up from them. An example of my own is that ripples on the surface of a remote lake at night are a sign of the direction of the wind, despite there being no one there to observe them. Consequently, "neither an utterer, nor even, perhaps, an interpreter is essential to a sign" (ibid). Peirce proceeds to "inquire whether there be not some ingredient of the utterer and some ingredient of the interpreter which not only are so essential, but are even more characteristic of signs than the utterer and the interpreter themselves." He takes several pages to identify the essential ingredient of the utterer as the *object *(EP 2:404-409) and just two paragraphs to identify the essential ingredient of the interpreter as the *interpretant *(EP 2:409-410). Every sign has a conditionally necessary (final) interpretant, and thus a possible (immediate) interpretant, even if it never has an actual (dynamical) interpretant because there does not happen to be an interpreter present to be determined by it. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 3:59 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon Alen, > > Is this your opinion or Peirce's? > > Moreover, my point continues to be that it is not necessary for something > to be *actually *perceived in order to qualify as a sign. It is > sufficient that (1) it *may *determine a dynamical interpretant under > various circumstances by virtue of having an *immediate *interpretant, > and (2) it *would *determine a dynamical interpretant under ideal > circumstances by virtue of having a *final *interpretant. > > I am particular interested in where to find the source. > > best, > > 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 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.
