John, list I wouldn’t say that the Interpretants are a muddled uselessness.I think they play a vital role. I think, however, that attempting to find exact and singular meanings of terms is not very functional.
I use Peirce primarily for analysis of both biological and societal systems - I find him extremely perceptive, above all, with his analysis of the Categories- The reality of ‘modes of Being’ is extremely difficult to find in other scientific or philosophical outlines - ie - Most analyses of ‘matter’ view it as almost inert ‘stuff’ and focuses more on mechanical interactions or puzzles over quantum ‘weirdness’. But - to outline concepts of ‘feeling’ [ and even protoplasm feels]; the concept of reaction - and - the concept of habit formation - all three categories found as universal - I personally find this very functional in explaining both biological systems and societal systems. . Then - I find his focus on the multiple nodal sites of the semiotic process to be useful; and I view semiotic processes as operative in all of matter, both physical and biological and in societal systems. That is, I full yagree with Peirce’s view that the whole universe is composed of signs [plural]; and indeed, is a vast semiosic process. So- I find the hexadic semiosic process very useful: that is, the interactional information functionality of an external relation of the sign vehicle to its environment [ which relation becomes the Dynamic Object]. And then, the internal nature of the dats from this DO - which is commonly quite different from the ‘full nature’ of the DO - ie, the Immediate Object. Then, the Representamen as mediation. Accepting the input data and analyzing it. And then- the three Interpretants - with the Internal Interpretant as the individual’s local subjective reaction; the external - or Dynamic Interpretent as the Individual’s more objective reaction…and finally - the acknowledgment by Peirce that there could be a commonly developed interpretation of these stimuli. That is - the role of the individual within the community. And of course, all of these ’nodes’ can also function within the three categories, which increases the complexity of the semiosic function. - I DO see a very vital role for the Interpretants. ..in enabling deviation from the data of the Dynamic Object - and enabling adaptation of the sign vehicle and the development of new Habits [held within the representamen of the sign-vehicle. ]. That is - the fact that there are three interepetants, moving from the immediate local perception of the input data , to an external objective result [ does the effect of the input data as expressed...have any functional result? ..and then..on to the larger collective result - does this function to CHANGE THE HABITS OF THE REPRESENTAMEN? Edwina > On Feb 2, 2024, at 4:30 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > Edwina, Jon AS, Jon A, Helmut, List, > > Peirce made immense contributions to 21st century research in all the > branches of cognitive science. But he never found any informative or useful > applications of his writings on interpretants. He was struggling with the > ideas up to the end. > > Peirce scholars never built any extensions to his writings on interpretants > because Peirce himself was unable to produce a useful system. He couldn't > convince anybody, not even himself. See the end of this note for the > citation and quotations from the Stanford article. Conclusion: Neither > Peirce nor anybody else ever developed the theory to make useful predictions > about anything. > > In short, I wouldn't say that Peirce's writings on interpretants are wrong -- > just that they are so vague that nobody has been able to use them to do or > say anything useful. > > Recommendation: Let his writings on interpretants rest in peace (RIP), and > focus on the great body of work that is at the forefront of the latest > developments in cognitive science. > > John > > > From: "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > > John, list > > Regardless of the terminology, which I acknowledge obscures the analysis, I > think that one can conclude that Peirce’s view is that there are three > Interpretants. One is Individual Internal; the next is Individual External, > and the last one is Collective External. And- each of these three ’nodes’ > can be in any one of the three modal categories. > > That’s how I see it. > > Edwina > >> On Jan 31, 2024, at 6:37 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: >> >> I rarely comment on discussions of interpretants, because nobody, not even >> Peirce, had a complete, coherent, and decisive theory of interpretants. >> Perhaps some Peirce scholars have developed theories that go beyond what >> Peirce wrote. That is possible, but nobody can claim that their theories are >> what Peirce himself had intended. >> >> On these issues, I recommend the article by Albert Atkin in the Stanford >> Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first version in 2006 and major update in 2022: >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ >> >> Atkin has a thorough list of references for anybody who intends to study >> this topic. See below for some quotations from the end of the article that >> show how incomplete, indefinite, and uncertain Peirce's own writings happen >> to be. >> >> I don't want to discourage anybody from discussing interpretants. But since >> Peirce himself was uncertain and indecisive, nobody can claim that their >> interpretation is what Peirce had intended. >> >> John >> _______________ >> >> As is common with all of Peirce’s work in philosophy, various changes in >> terminology and subtleties with accompanying neologisms occur from one piece >> of work to the next. His work on interpretants is no different. At various >> points in his final accounts of signs, Peirce describes the division of >> interpretants as being: immediate, dynamic and final; or as emotional, >> energetic, and logical; or as naïve, rogate and normal; or as intentional, >> effective and communicational; or even destinate, effective and explicit. As >> Liszka (1990, 20) notes, “the received view in Peirce scholarship suggests >> that the divisions of interpretant into immediate, dynamic, and final are >> archetypal, all other divisions being relatively synonymous with these >> categories.” There are, however, some dissenters from this view. >> >> In discussing the interpretant, Peirce describes one of the trichotomies >> above as follows: >> >> In all cases [the Interpretant] includes feelings; for there must, at least, >> be a sense of comprehending the meaning of the sign. If it includes more >> than mere feeling, it must evoke some kind of effort. It may include >> something besides, which, for the present, may be vaguely called “thought”. >> I term these three kinds of interpretant the “emotional”, the “energetic”, >> and the “logical” interpretants. (EP2. 409) >> . . . >> >> Peirce describes the dynamic interpretant as deriving its character from >> action (CP8 .315 1904), but later says, “action cannot be a logical >> interpretant” (CP5 .491 1906). This seems to make the two inconsistent. (See >> Liszka (1990, 21) for more on the problems with Fitzgerald’s claim). >> Moreover, this inconsistency seems to suggest a problem for Short’s view >> since his account also suggests that the dynamic interpretant should include >> the logical interpretant as a subdivision (Short 1981, 213). Short, however, >> claims textual support for his own view from instances where Peirce mentions >> the emotional/energetic/logical trichotomy alongside the apparently separate >> claim that signs have three interpretants. (Short sites (CP8 .333 1904) and >> (CP4 .536 1906). Short takes this as suggesting that the two should be >> treated as different and distinct trichotomies. (Short 2004, 235). >> >> How far the textual evidence on the matter will prove decisive is unclear, >> especially given the fragmentary nature of Peirce’s final work on signs. >> However, one or two things militate in favor of the “received view”. First, >> Peirce is notorious for experimenting with terminology, especially when >> trying to pin down his own ideas, or describe the same phenomenon from >> different angles. Second, it is unclear why trichotomies like the >> intentional/effectual/communicational should count as terminological >> experiments whilst the emotional/energetic/logical counts as a distinct >> division. And finally, there is little provision in Peirce’s projected >> sixty-six classes of signs for the kind of additional classifications >> imposed by further subdivisions of the interpretant. (For more on this >> discussion see, Liszka 1990 and 1996; Fitzgerald 1966; Lalor 1997; Short >> 1981, 1996, and 2004). >> >> > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
