Jon Alen, Just to avoid misunderstanding.
JAS: 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. I never suggested that I do consider them the same and did not notice somebody else doing so in our exchanges. Neither did I read any remark to the extend that you do regard them the same. The most curious part of your response however is that according to you a feeling is not a sign. While at the same time you quote Peirce JAS: "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). But, is not the sense of comprehending the meaning of the sign a sign of reassurance? Best, Auke > Op 16 juni 2020 om 2:55 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>: > > 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 > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:43 AM Edwina Taborsky < [email protected] > mailto:[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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
