Edwina, Auke, List: As I have made clear in multiple previous posts, I do not consider the emotional/energetic/logical interpretants to be the same as the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants. On the contrary, in my view these two trichotomies are orthogonal to each other--emotional/energetic/logical describe the *nature *of the sign's effect as either a feeling (1ns), an exertion (2ns), or a further sign (3ns); while immediate/dynamical/final correspond to the *possible* effects of a general type, the *actual* effect of an individual token, and the conditionally *necessary* effect of the sign itself.
That being the case, I agree that only intellectual concepts and other symbols have *logical *interpretants; but I hold that all signs have *immediate *and *final *interpretants, regardless of whether they ever determine a *dynamical *interpretant. I also agree that all signs have *emotional* interpretants; as Peirce wrote, "In all cases, it [the interpretant] includes feelings; for there must, at least, be a sense of comprehending the meaning of the sign" (EP 2:409, 1907). Logical interpretants are further signs (3ns) that *involve *exertions (2ns) and feelings (1ns), while energetic interpretants are exertions (2ns) that *involve* feelings (1ns). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:43 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > With regard to this particular sentence of JAS: > > "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. " > > In addition to my post concerning my interpretation that the sign is > irreducibly triadic, and includes an interpretant even without an > 'interpreter' - [unless one assigns that function of interpreter to the > entity, such as the human body's immune system is the interpreter of the > virus [object] entering it - and the interpretant is the effects of that > intrusioin [rash, fever]…..In this case, the interpreter is equivalent to > the mediative representamen/sign. > > But- my question concerns the comment by JAS above - and I question > whether every sign has, necessarily, a final interpretant. I refer to > Peirce's comment that "not all signs have logical interpretants, but only > intellectual concepts and the like; and these are all either general or > intimately connected with generals, as it seems to me. This shows that the > species of future tense of the logical interpretant is that of the > conditional mood, the 'would-be'" EP p 410. > > My point is that, as Peirce points out, not every sign has a final > interpretant, conditional or not. Only intellectual concepts. So - that > measles, that wind-on-the-water, that weathercock - which are all > functioning as triads - don't have final interpretants. > > As for the concept that the triad has an immediate/emotional interpretant > but not necessarily an actual/dynamic interpretant - I'd agree with that. > But not for the reason outlined by JAS, which requires that 'interpreter > present to be determined by it'. I'd say that the interpreter IS present. > In the case of measles, the interpreter is the human body's immune system; > in the case of the weathercock, it's the metal/wooden stand; in the case of > the water ripples, it's the water. > > Now - there may not be an active, dynamic interpretant resulting from the > stimulus from the Dynamic Object. There might instead be an interpretant > which is below the 'critical threshold' for an actuality, a dynamic > interpretant to emerge. So, as Auke points out, the result would only be an > emotional interpretant. For example, the virus would infect the body but > would be 'asymptomatic'. If the immune system broke down, then, the > critical threshold would be lowered and symptoms would appear. The wind > would affect the weathercock but not enough to move it. And so on. > > 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 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.
