Gary F., List: GF: Peirce does not say in CP 4.551 that the two minds are welded in the *uttered *sign itself.
To what other sign could he be referring in that passage? Every sign has a quasi-utterer and a quasi-interpreter, and those two quasi-minds are at one in the sign itself--namely, the specific sign that is uttered by the quasi-utterer and interpreted by the quasi-interpreter. GF: Indeed, by your own reasoning, I don’t see how a determination of the mind of the interpreter can be *included *in a discrete sign whose utterance precedes the effectual interpretant. Right, on my reading of EP 2:478, the uttered sign--including its immediate interpretant, which is the communicational interpretant--is a determination of the commind, while the intentional interpretant is a *previous *determination of the mind of the utterer, and the effectual interpretant is a *subsequent *determination of the mind of the interpreter. GF: In the language of “Peirce’s Topical Continuum”, the *uttered *sign is of a lower dimensionality than the continuous dialogue of which it is a part, which is itself an argument. An uttered sign can be regarded (in binocular vision) either as a topical singularity in the continuum (a break in it) or as a “limit” which joins two portions of the continuum. At the moment, I am more inclined to view the uttered sign as a *portion* of the continuous process of semiosis, such that it is of the *same* dimensionality as the dialogue of which it is a part, while its "boundaries" are the arbitrary limits of lower dimensionality that we mark off for the purpose of analysis. However, I have suggested previously that a proposition is of lower dimensionality than an argument, and that a name is of lower dimensionality than a proposition. When describing a continuous process of inference by means of an argumentation in retrospect, we mark off portions of the argument with propositions as their limits, and we mark off portions of each proposition with names as their limits. GF: The way I see it, a communicative dialogue, if genuine, must be the sign of higher dimensionality which includes all three (intentional, effectual, and communicational) interpretants. Peirce's terminology of intentional/effectual/communicational interpretants is only strictly applicable to an individual sign for which we can identify one mind as the utterer and another mind as the interpreter. That makes it very suitable for each utterance *within *a communicative dialogue, including a text, as well as an entire *internal *dialogue where the quasi-utterer and quasi-interpreter are temporally sequential stages of the *same *mind. In the case of an entire *external *dialogue, where the utterer and interpreter are different minds that are constantly *exchanging *those roles back and forth with respect to each succeeding constituent sign, I suggest that the two of them *together* serve as both the quasi-utterer and the quasi-interpreter--temporally sequential stages of the *commind *into which they are "fused" or "welded" in the dialogue as a whole, which is the sign. GF: I guess that would make them all *immediate *interpretants, since they are all *in *the sign? Only the communicational interpretant is *internal *to the uttered sign, such that it is the *immediate *interpretant of *that *sign. The intentional interpretant is always a *dynamical *interpretant of a *previous *sign in the mind of the utterer, although it may be "betrayed" in the immediate interpretant of the uttered sign. The effectual interpretant is a *dynamical *interpretant of the uttered sign in the mind of the interpreter. All this is true even for an entire internal or external dialogue--only the communicational interpretant is internal to it, while the intentional interpretant precedes it and the effectual interpretant succeeds it. GF: But I’m finding it hard to breathe in this rarified atmosphere of abstractions, so I’d better stop now before I expire. Okay, how about we take a look at some concrete examples? 1. Your post quoted below, to which I am replying, is obviously a sign. You are the utterer of that sign, and I am its interpreter. The intentional interpretant is not an interpretant of *that *sign, it is a dynamical interpretant of *previous *signs in *your *mind (including my previous post), such that your post was a dynamical interpretant of those previous signs. The communicational interpretant is the immediate interpretant of your post, which is common to both of us insofar as we are both competent in the written English language. The effectual interpretant is the dynamical interpretant of your post in *my *mind, including this post that *I* wrote as a result of it. 2. Likewise, this post is obviously a sign. I am the utterer of this sign, and you are its interpreter. The intentional interpretant is not an interpretant of *this *sign, it is a dynamical interpretant of *previous *signs in *my *mind (including your post quoted below), such that this post is a dynamical interpretant of those previous signs. The communicational interpretant is the immediate interpretant of this post, which is common to both of us insofar as we are both competent in the written English language. The effectual interpretant is the dynamical interpretant of this post in *your *mind, including any future post that *you *write as a result of it. 3. Our entire *series *of posts over the last few days is an external dialogue that constitutes one sign. The two of us *together *are its quasi-utterer as well as its quasi-interpreter. The intentional interpretant is not an interpretant of *this *sign, it is a dynamical interpretant of *previous *signs in *our *minds (including Peirce's texts), such that our dialogue is a dynamical interpretant of those previous signs. The communicational interpretant is the immediate interpretant of our dialogue, which is common to both of us insofar as we are both competent in the written English language. The effectual interpretant is the dynamical interpretant of our dialogue in *our *minds, including any future posts that *we *write as a result of it. 4. Since we are conducting our external dialogue by means of an e-mail list, there are additional interpreters of that one sign, namely, all those reading along. The intentional interpretant is still a dynamical interpretant of previous signs in *our* minds (yours and mine), such that our dialogue is still a dynamical interpretant of those previous signs. The communicational interpretant is still the immediate interpretant of our dialogue, which is common to us along with those other readers insofar as we are all competent in the written English language. The effectual interpretant is the dynamical interpretant of our dialogue in the minds of *those other **readers*, including any future posts that *they *write as a result of it. Of course, #1 and #2 are constituent signs of #3 and #4, and each can also be analyzed as consisting of "smaller" signs, which can also be analyzed as consisting of "smaller" signs, and so on *ad infinitum*. Moreover, #3 and #4 are constituent signs of the Peirce-L archive, which can also be analyzed as a constituent of a "larger" sign, which can also be analyzed as a constituent of a "larger" sign, and so on until we reach the entire universe as one sign, a vast semiosic continuum. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 6:42 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Gary R, thanks for introducing this quote into the thread: > > CSP: In coming to Speculative Rhetoric, after the main conceptions of > logic have been well settled, there can be no serious objection to relaxing > the severity of our rule of excluding psychological matter, observations of > how we think, and the like. The regulation has served its end; why should > it be allowed now to hamper our endeavors to make methodeutic practically > useful? CP 2.107 > > Indeed, I think the pragmatic result of this conversation should be to > bring greater self-control to our interpretive habits, and that requires > psychological realism as well as logical rigor. > > JAS: According to Peirce, the intentional, effectual, and communicational > (or com-) interpretants are determinations of the mind of the utterer, the > mind of the interpreter, and the commens (or commind), respectively (EP > 2:478). He does not say that the first two interpretants/determinations are > "welded" into the third interpretant/determination, he says that the first > two (quasi-)minds are "welded" into the third (quasi-)mind in the uttered > sign itself (CP 4.551). > > GF: Peirce does not say in CP 4.551 that the two minds are welded in the > *uttered* sign itself. Indeed, by your own reasoning, I don’t see how a > determination of the mind of the interpreter can be *included *in a > discrete sign whose utterance *precedes* the effectual interpretant. In > the language of “Peirce’s Topical Continuum”, the *uttered* sign is of a > lower dimensionality than the continuous dialogue of which it is a part, > which is itself an argument. An uttered sign can be regarded (in binocular > vision) either as a topical singularity in the continuum (a break in it) or > as a “limit” which joins two portions of the continuum. > > The way I see it, a communicative dialogue, if genuine, must be the sign > of higher dimensionality which includes all three (intentional, effectual, > and communicational) interpretants. I guess that would make them all > *immediate* interpretants, since they are all *in* the sign? But I’m > finding it hard to breathe in this rarified atmosphere of abstractions, so > I’d better stop now before I expire. > > Gary f. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
