Helmut, That is certainly true: "I find it a bit problematic to say, that the sign determines the interpretant, because the sign doesn´t infer, it is the interpreter, who does the inference."
In fact, Peirce said many times in many ways that signs grow. The interpretation of any mark (sign object) depends on the context, the interpreter, and all the background knowledge that the interpreter has. As the person learns more or has different interests and goals, the same mark may be interpreted in very different ways. It's important to recognize that anything may be a mark that some human or animal or living thing of any species may interpret as a sign object. And the same individual may interpret the same or similar marks in different ways at different times for different reasons. It's important to remember that Peirce often talked about dogs, parrots, crystals, bees, and even plants. All of them are sign interpreters. And remember the Mayan inscriptions, which many people thought were decorations, until some observers decided to relate them to the language that living Mayans spoke. The same sign objects took on radically different interpretations. There is no such thing as a unique interpretant for any sign-mark. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> Jon, Cecile, List, Jon, in your first paragraph you wrote about inference. I agree. Therefore I find it a bit problematic to say, that the sign determines the interpretant, because the sign doesn´t infere, it is the interpreter, who does the inference. But ok, I guess we might say, that Peirce prescinds the semiosis from the interpreter, so, ok, the flow of determination goes from the sign to the interpretant, because it is the interpreter, who receives the sign, and then forms the interpretant, and, if you donot mention the interpreter, well, then you just skip her/him/it. But I think, that this skipping is only justified, if the interpretant is true, because then it (the interpretant) is a subset of the final interpretant, and not a misinterpretation. But: Can we take that for granted? Talking about precission: The sign anyway is prescinded from the, in reality not reducible, sign triad. If we say, that something prescinded determines something else, this determination too is prescinded. Prescission might be seen as an error, so this is error propagation. That, i guess, is the reason, why this whole determination affair is somehow confusing. It surely is, if we take "determination" too literally, I mean, if we take it too muchly for real. Do you agree? You see, I have been trying very hard to not contradict Peirce. Best, Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
