List, John, Edwina, Jon, How differently some other distinguished scholars see this matter of the 'usefulness' of Peirce's semeiotic project than John Sowa appears to. Consider this passage near the conclusion of a paper by Nathan Houser in a festschrift for Lucia Santaella published just last year, a passage near the end which would seem to contradict even John's conclusion regarding Tom Short's take on especially Peirce's late taxonomy of signs. I've subdivided the long paragraph in the interest of readability on the List and in order to emphasize certain salient points. Houser writes (emphasis added by me):
*Conclusion (and Call to Carry On)* After devoting a great deal of care to Peirce’s later efforts to unravel the puzzle of semiosis and to produce an extended classification of the fundamental varieties of possible signs, *T. L. Short concluded that Peirce’s later taxonomy “is sketchy, tentative, and, as best I can make out, incoherent” (Short 2007, p. 260). But he *[GR, Short] *quickly went on to point out that it is not the inconclusiveness of Peirce’s own findings but “the kind of project” he had conceived and was pursuing that is important.* This reflects Peirce’s candid assessment that the semiotic project he had launched was a great undertaking, far too large for a lone inquirer, and that *he must commend it to “future explorers”* (Peirce 1907, EP 2: 413, 482). In looking back over his own explorations with signs, from his “New List” to his Lowell Lectures of 1903 and the many relevant pages in his Logic Notebook and late correspondence, Peirce likely would not have assessed the record of his explorations, even the rapid-fire tries and retries in his Logic Notebook, to be “incoherent,” but he might have been forced to admit that it was all “a very snarl of twine,” as he had described himself in contrast to his life-long friend, William James (CP 6.184). But *Peirce’s confidence that he had opened the way to a key new science never waned. As Max Fisch pointed out, during the final six years of Peirce’s life he was engaged on a system of logic considered as semiotic which he hoped would “stand for realism in the twentieth century *as Mill’s System of Logic had stood for nominalism in the nineteenth” (Fisch 1986, p. 196). Considering the questions [. . .] that remain open, due to the snarl of ideas they invoke or to continuing disagreements among semioticians, it is apparent that *Peirce’s semiotic project is a work in progress, but it is also apparent that it has attracted capable “explorers” who are carrying the work forward. * It is important to bear in mind that *the issues Peirce left unresolved and the questions he left unanswered are not evidence of the failure of his project but of its potential for new revelations and understandings. This is not a project to only discover what Peirce meant by the signs he left us but to engage with the dynamic objects that were leading him on his laborious investigation of semiotic analysis *and discovery toward the final interpretants that still await us (and which, we must admit, may never be fully achieved, though that is all to the good because it keeps inquiry alive and relevant to the times). *We are engaged in an ongoing collaborative project which has been bequeathed to those of us who have joined or will join the cause.* [. . .] “Peirce’s Ongoing Semiotic Project.” In *Tempo da colheita: homenagem à Lucia Santaella* [Harvest time: Festschrift for Lucia Santaella]. Eds. Priscila Monteiro Borges & Juliana de Oliveira Rocha Franco. São Paulo: Filoczar, 2023: 27–52. John also wrote in an earlier post, first quoting Peirce: [CSP] "The Normal Interpretant is the Genuine Interpretant, embracing all that the sign could reveal concerning the Object to a sufficiently penetrating mind..." JFS]: That is too vague for guiding research on the many issues that Peirce discussed in the many MSS where he mentioned the word *interpretant*. And it can only be used by "sufficiently penetrating minds". But I do not see how this entails coming to the conclusion that *no one* possesses "a sufficiently penetrating mind [to derive] a coherent theory of interpretants" such that any attempt to do so is a waste of time and effort. That Peirce was unable to finish fully spelling out "a coherent theory of interpretants" shouldn't keep us, his successors, from picking up where he left off. As Peirce wrote: "One generation collects premisses in order that a distant generation may discover what they mean" (CP 7.87, 1902). Although I have little doubt that John would disagree, I would point to Jon Schmidt's paper, "Peirce's evolving interpretants," as at least the beginning of an outline for "a coherent theory of interpretants" which, in his characteristic way, Jon supports with exact quotations from Peirce. See: Peirce’s evolving interpretants <https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHPEI-12> , *Semiotica* 2022 (246): 211-223. 2022. https://philarchive.org/archive/SCHPEI-12v1 Moreover, I am certain that I am not alone in seeing the very existence of semeiotics today as arguing against John's dismissal of Peirce's writings about interpretants as "so vague that nobody has been able to use them to do or say anything useful." John seems to be basically advocating ignoring anything that Peirce wrote unless it is somehow relevant to "the latest developments in cognitive science." Doing so suggests that he is employing the methods of tenacity and authority rather than the method of science. Best, Gary Richmond On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:41 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Edwina, List, > > I am not denying the fact that interpretants, as defined by Peirce, exist, > and I am not denying that Peirce's 3-way distinction is good. > > But you said that you had not studied the kinds of details that the > linguists observe and specify. > > My claim is that any theory that does not dig deeply into those details is > useless. And by "those", I mean every kind of detail that is studied and > analyzed by *EVERY **ONE *of the cognitive sciences: philosophy, > psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and > anthropology. > > Any serious theory of interpretants must include *ALL POSSIBLE > INFLUENCES *from any and every branch of cognitive science. The kind of > generic theory that Peirce attempted is too weak to make any specific > predictions in any particular case. > > I believe that Lady Welby had a good intuitive sense of the need for > considering every possible influence, but she did not have the formal > training in math & logic that Peirce had. If you examine the development > of Peirce's ideas in the decade after he began their correspondence (from > 1903 to the end), you can see how Peirce was moving away from more abstract > universal definitions to a more concrete focus on details. > > The first step was a move from a phenomenology based on Kant's > abstractions to a phaneroscopy that paid more attention to Welby's focus on > concrete details. But that shift made the task far more complex. It's > essential to focus on the concrete details of every method of observation. > > That is why Peirce was groping. He could no longer make broad > generalizations, and every attempt to state a generalization forced him to > consider how it would affect every detail of every branch, > > John > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> > > John, list > > I continue to either misunderstand or object - I don’t know which term I > should use - to your rejection of the role of the Interpretants. I simply > don’t see how the semiosic process can function - and it IS a function - > without the necessary role of the Interpretants. How can you have a > semiosic triadic function without the third relation - the relation that > provides meaning to the original stimulus? That third relation, the > meaning[s] is provided by the Interpretant Relations. And I emphasize the > plural ecrus the simple one-node site [ the single interpretant or > signified] such as is found in Saussure or ….is simply not enough to > explain the complexity of the development of information. > > If you consider the semiosic process - we can see that there are a number > of different ‘cuts’, that divides the experience into different zones > of semiotic processes. > > The first cut’ so to speak, is simple: ontological - the separation of > external and internal [ See Atmanspacher, H. 1999. ‘Cartesian Cut, > Heisenberg Cut and the Concept of Complexity’, In: The Quest for a unified > Theory of Information. Eds. W. Hofkirchner. ; 125-147. > Matsumo, K [Resurrection of the Cartesian Physics. Same edition; p 31-44. ] > > This simply separates the sign-vehicle which stores the habits of the > representamen from the external world - as Peirce has written, such that > the Immediate Object and the Immediate Intnerpretant are internal to this > ‘cut’….and the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant and Final > Interpretant are external. > > Obviously - an internal experience of an incoming data - is not as complex > as one that is externalized. > But - as you can see in Robert Marty’s outline of the 28 classes of signs > [which are hexadic forms, ie, including the two Object Relations and Three > Interpretant Relations] that the Internal or Immediate Interpretant can be > in any of the three categories - as related to the other Relations in the > semiotic triad. > > The next Interpretant is external to the sign-vehicle - the Dynamic - and > inserts a ‘visible’ or objectively knowable and measurable reaction - and > moves it into common observance. This is the basis of most of our > interactions with the world. BUT - medically, psychologically, and > informationally- this external meaning is intimately connected to the data > produced within the internal Immediate Interpretant. After all- the Dynamic > relies for its ‘base’ on that Immediate input. > > And the final - as I’ve said before …brings in communal values and habit > generation. > > That is- there are obviously THREE sites/nodes where information is > processed, from the internal and possibly isolate form, to the externally > reactive and available-to-others …to the development of habits of dealing > with this original input data. Information development requires this > complexity. > > My point is that all three developments from the original object-input are > vital aspects of the path of informational development, where data moves > into information within both the individual and the community. > > Again - I am either misunderstanding your point or being dumb..… but I > consider the three - ie- all three - Interpretants to be vital in the > generation of all matter and life. How else is a community to interact with > each other, without the observation of the constantly produced Dynamic > Interpretants? How else are habits to develop within this community except > by the absorption of these Dynamic Interpretants within the Final > Interpretant? > > Edwina > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
