List: The subject line is the title of my paper that has just been published online by *Semiotica* (https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0115) and will presumably appear in an upcoming issue of that journal. Here is the abstract.
The semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce is irreducibly triadic, positing that a sign mediates between the object that determines it and the interpretant that it determines. He eventually holds that each sign has two objects and three interpretants, standardizing quickly on immediate and dynamical (or real) for the objects but experimenting with a variety of names for the interpretants. The two most prominent terminologies are immediate/dynamical/final and emotional/ energetic/logical, and scholars have long debated how they are related to each other. This paper seeks to shed new light on the matter by reviewing the numerous manuscript drafts where Peirce develops the latter nomenclature while attempting to introduce his pragmatism to a general audience. It then goes on to examine an additional set of interpretants, intentional/effectual/communicational, and shows that the three different trichotomies can be understood as complementary, rather than redundant or conflicting. I previously concurred with T. L. Short's view that the first two trichotomies are orthogonal to each other--immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants as possible, actual, and habitual effects of signs are divisible into emotional, energetic, and logical interpretants as feelings, actions/exertions, and thoughts/signs. However, careful study of the multiple drafts for "Pragmatism" (R 318-322&324, 1907), the only texts where Peirce employs the terminology of emotional/energetic/logical interpretants, convinced me that James Liszka and Brendan Lalor are correct after all--they are the familiar manifestations of immediate/dynamical/final interpretants in concrete human semiosis, which we experience as "modifications of consciousness" (R 318:308-309[50-51], CP 5.485, EP 2:411). Moreover, a logical interpretant can be a mere apprehension, another sign as a verbal definition, or (ultimately) a general mental habit--thus corresponding to the first, second, or third grade of clearness in accordance with Peirce's pragmat(ic)ism. Turning to his March 1906 letter to Lady Welby (EP 2:478), it seems fairly straightforward to identify the effectual interpretant, as a determination of the mind of the interpreter, with the dynamical interpretant. However, I continue to disagree with the general consensus on aligning the intentional and communicational interpretants with the immediate and final interpretants, respectively. I maintain instead that the intentional interpretant, as a determination of the mind of the utterer, is a dynamical interpretant of a *previous *sign of the same object; while the communicational interpretant, as a determination of the commind into which the minds of the utterer and interpreter are fused or welded by the sign itself, is the immediate interpretant that is *internal *to that sign. The final interpretant is absent from this passage because it is the *telos *or ideal aim of semiosis, and the phenomenon being discussed is a discrete event prescinded from that continuous process. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
