BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
think there's a confusion here between an Interpretant and an
Interpreter.
The Interpretant is a basic component of the Sign triad which is, as
we know, irreducible. [O-R-I]. There is no additional need for an
observer or interpreter. Perception need not be conscious but can be
understood as the Mind within the habits of the entity, reacting to
the external stimuli from the Dynamic Object. This reaction is the
Interpretant.
The example of 'symptoms of disease' is in itself, a triadic
semiosis. The Object, both DO and IO, would be the virus that enters
the body. The body's immune system is the Representamen's mediative
habits. And the Interpretant, both II and DI, would be the consequent
fever and rash. There is no need for another Semiosic Process of an
Interpreter to say: 'That's measles'. It's a dicent.with these direct
physical interactions. The observer's comment about naming the disease
is a Legisign [I'd say a rhematic indexical legisign].
The weathervane is also a dicent triad, with a direct physical
interpretant - ie, the moving of the pointer. The ripples on the lake
are similar - they are a triad of a stimulus wind affecting an entity
[wind-on-water] with the resultant interpretant of 'ripples'.
These above are all triads. What is not needed is for a secondary
semiosis action, of the interpreter, to consciously observe and
comment on them. The universe is a vast semiosic system, and the
atoms and molecules, all of them in triadic interaction, function
without any human or other conscious interpreter.
Edwina
On Sun 14/06/20 8:30 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 3:59 AM Auke van Breemen <
[email protected] [3]> 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
