Gary R., List: Indeed, importance and usefulness are in the eye of the beholder, and predictive success is only one measure. As you rightly point out, the burden of justification is on anyone who would attempt to disparage, discourage, or even foreclose further investigation of any given matter, not on those who wish to continue pursuing it.
In this case, if triadic semiosis is a real phenomenon, such that the universe is not reducible to dyadic reactions and monadic qualities, then the importance and usefulness of a theory of interpretants--the *effects *of signs, whether possible (immediate), actual (dynamical), or ideal (final)--should be obvious to anyone. After all, pragmatism--the most famous product of Peirce's thought--falls under the third branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic, namely, speculative rhetoric (or methodeutic), "the science of the essential conditions under which a sign may determine an interpretant sign of itself and of whatever it signifies, or may, as a sign, bring about a physical result" (EP 2:326, 1904). Moreover, if the entire universe is conceived as one immense sign, a semiosic continuum--"a vast representamen ... working out its conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903), and thus "perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906)--then *every event* can be analyzed as the interpretant of a sign. From that standpoint, what could be *more *important or useful than a theory of interpretants? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 4:22 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, Jon, Edwina, Helmut, List, > > JFS (1/31): "I don't want to discourage anybody from discussing > interpretants." > JFS (2/2): "Let his writings on interpretants rest in peace (RIP)." > and "Conclusion: Neither Peirce nor anybody else ever developed the > theory to make useful predictions about anything." > > > I would like to suggest that merely because Peirce's writings on > interpretants -- which he worked on until near the end of his life and > which many scholars see as an* integral* aspect of his semeiotic -- have > not been fully developed is no reason to think that may not be in the > future; and no reason for those who remain interested in the possibility of > their development to cease their inquiry. > > "[W]e see arguments that Peirce’s later typology is crucial to a full > understanding and application of semiotics (see Quieroz 2012), or claims > that it whilst underdeveloped, it holds promise and deserves serious effort > and attention (see Houser 1992 and Jappy 2017). [I would especially > recommend: Houser, N., 1992. “On Peirce’s theory of Propositions: A > response to Hilpinen” GR]. *Transactions of Charles S. Peirce Society*. > 28:3, 489–504.] > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/#DivIntot > > > And Edwina's post -- which I just read -- points to the potential value of > all three semeiotic elements "for analysis of both biological and > societal systems." I agree. > > My recommendation: Let scholars pursue the inquiries which interest them > and which they see potential value in pursuing. To suggest otherwise is > to "block the way of inquiry." > > Best, > > Gary Richmond >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
