Bill, Patrick, list, Just a note. I'd just point out that "meaning" or "significance" in Peircean semiotics is what is formed into the interpretant, particularly in respect of informativeness (though not always). Questions of to what object does an index refer, to what ground does the icon refer, or to what connotation does the symbol refer, seem to correspond, more or less, to what we now call semantics. But as to the informativeness of the sign, the information which the interpretant brings freshly to light, i.e., the change of information which is brought about semiotically, this seems to correspond to what is now sometimes called "combinatorial," not in the sense of combinatorics or of combinatory logic, but in the sense of the fresh meanings or information of informative combinations of terms, or, in the more general Peircean view, terms (rhemes), propositions (dicisigns), arguments, whatever kinds of signs. An interpretant, as I understand it, does not have to be informative and in any case can't consist purely of fresh information, but the rendering explicit of such information is usually (though not always) what's in mind in discussions of the interpretant.
Best, Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help! Patrick: In addition to representing what I have always hoped is Peirce's developmental teleology, your description of sign function seems to me to get to the heart of pragmatic discourse analysis in which conventional sign structures and meanings ("syntactics" and "semantics") serve principally as orientation to what the situated discourse is being used to do. I would only add that it is sometimes useful to recognize that a number of differentiable processes occur simultaneously within the great "alpha" process. There is the "action" processes associated with "life-forms." There is the "motion/matter" processes associated with "non-life-forms." (I'm using these terms only as gestures, fingers that point in a given direction, and not as depictions.) The highly ephemeral acts of sign usage are "real" events in several related but distinct processes--e.g, those physical, physiological, psychological and sociological processes necessary to communication acts. It seems to me these different processes often get confused or conflated. Existential "objects" are also events, but typically in a much slower process that makes them available to our exteroception for comparatively vast periods of time, which we think makes them "empirically" real, extant. I think it is not very useful to speak of signs as existing in the same process as existential objects, but if we must, perhaps we can say, "Yes, signs exist, but much faster than objects do." Bill Bailey Patrick Coppock wrote, in part: > According to Peirce's developmental teleology, these three "aspects" of the > sign (function), by way of which we are able to "experience" or "recognise" > the "presence" of any given (manifest for someone or something) sign, are > destined to keep on "morphing" into one another continuously, emerging, > submerging and and re-emerging again as the meanings we singly or > collectively attribute to the signs we encounter from day to day continue to > grow in complexity -- at different rates of development, of course, depending > on the relative "strength" of the habits (mental or otherwise) that > "constrain" Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness and allow them to > "oscillate"/ "morph" in relation to one another at different "rates" in > different situations and contexts, and allow them to be conceived of by us as > "conventionally" (or otherwise) representing "signifying" (or culturally > meaningful, if you like) units/configurations/ events/ states of affairs. > > Every culturally significant "event" that we are able to conceive of as a > sign (objects, thoughts, actions etc.) may then be seen to "embody" or > "posess", to a greater or lesser degree, and more or less saliently, all > three qualities/ aspects of the sign (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness) at > any given time in the ongoing flow of semiosis. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
