Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Edwina Taborsky]

John, list

1] I don’t know what you mean by ‘His Commentary’…in your sentence 
> But in his important analyses of those subjects, I have not seen him show how 
> his theory of interpretants aided him in the discovery and formulation of his 
> commentary.

2] And I don’t know what you mean by ’that insight’ in your sentence: 
> Can you (or any other reader of P-List) find any important (or just useful) 
> example of an insight in which Peirce's theory of interpretants helped 
> discover that insight?


3] I briefly outlined why I think that the the hexadic semosic process is 
capable of generative development of matter and mind.  That is, 

3-a] the reality of two object relations, with one, the DO,  being input from 
an external source, and the other, the IO, being the input that the 
sign-vehicle is equipped to accept as input [ a dog can smell better than a 
human; an owl can see better; a…etc etc]…

Along with the reality that input from multiple DOs might be happening at the 
same time..

3-b; the reality that the mediative process, theRepresentamen GROWS in its 
mediative capacity by learning, by exposure, by..even, chance [ see Peirce’s 
three methods of evolution: tychasm,  anancasm, agapasm]

3c- the reality of THREE Interpretant relations - 

with one being strictly a local, subjective, individual result..[the II] - an 
action that generates a potentiality for change; 

and the more complex next one [DI]  being individual but external to the 
individual, which moves the result of the original DO, IO input it into an 
actual existentially…that affects OTHER sign-vehicles 

….and the next one [FI] being the communal non-local non-individual generality 
where new laws are developed. 

That is - my view is that this whole process enables adaptive complexity to 
develop. An example could be where a bird tries to eat a seed, which has a hard 
shell [DO]; and what little it can extract from this shell [ IO] …is processed 
by its digestive system [Representamen in a mode of 3ns, 2ns and 1ns] , which, 
possibly lacking in nutrients from this small amount produces only a small 
nutrition result, [II] , but this small result forces the  bird’s body to 
develop a stronger digestion [to digest shells[ and even, these chemicals act 
to strengthen its beak…[DI]..and this reaction  becomes common among the local 
bird population [FI].

My point is that both the number of interactions that take place - and that 
includes all three interpretant which I think are vital - , along with the 
capacities of the three categorical modes - are basic to complex adaptive 
systems. 

Edwina






> On Feb 2, 2024, at 5:22 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Edwina,
> 
> I strongly agree with you that Peirce's analyses of those subjects are 
> extremely valuable.  I also believe that his analyses are at the forefront of 
> 21st C cognitive science in those areas.  That is a conclusion of my recent 
> article, of which I recently sent the completed Section 7 to these lists.
> 
> But in his important analyses of those subjects, I have not seen him show how 
> his theory of interpretants aided him in the discovery and formulation of his 
> commentary.
> 
> Can you (or any other reader of P-List) find any important (or just useful) 
> example of an insight in which Peirce's theory of interpretants helped 
> discover that insight?
> 
> John
>  
> 
> From: "Edwina Taborsky" 
> Sent: 2/2/24 5:01 PM
> To: John F Sowa 
> Cc: Peirce List , CG 
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
> 
> 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 en

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[John F Sowa]

Gary,

I believe that the word 'interpretant' is a good label for the way humans and 
other living things interpret a sign.

I also believe that his theories of semeiotic and his classification of signs 
and sign types are extremely valuable.

But I would ask you, please identify any notable Peirce scholar who said that 
Pierce's incomplete theories about how to go beyond the first step are integral 
to his semeiotic.

My point is that his inability to complete those theories is a warning sign.   
If he couldn't complete them and the best Peirce scholars can't show how to 
complete them, I have strong doubts about any  claims that go farther.

I am not saying that anybody should stop talking about any topic that Peirce 
chose to write about.  But I am just saying that all Peirce did was to label 
the first step.  For mathematics and mathematical logic, Peirce learned how to 
go infinitely far.  But for commonsense reasoning, his recommendations could 
just go one step at a time.

See that file Section7.pdf, which I circulated a few days ago.

Can anybody say more?

John


From: "Gary Richmond" 
Sent: 2/2/24 5:22 PM

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

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 4:30 PM John F Sowa  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" 

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  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 
topi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[John F Sowa]

Edwina,

I strongly agree with you that Peirce's analyses of those subjects are 
extremely valuable.  I also believe that his analyses are at the forefront of 
21st C cognitive science in those areas.  That is a conclusion of my recent 
article, of which I recently sent the completed Section 7 to these lists.

But in his important analyses of those subjects, I have not seen him show how 
his theory of interpretants aided him in the discovery and formulation of his 
commentary.

Can you (or any other reader of P-List) find any important (or just useful) 
example of an insight in which Peirce's theory of interpretants helped discover 
that insight?

John


From: "Edwina Taborsky" 
Sent: 2/2/24 5:01 PM
To: John F Sowa 
Cc: Peirce List , CG 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

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  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" 

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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Gary Richmond]

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




On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 4:30 PM John F Sowa  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" 
>
> 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  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 relat

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Edwina Taborsky]

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  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" 
> 
> 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  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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[John F Sowa]

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" 

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  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

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Helmut Raulien]

 

Supplement: My looking for a simple generator of the theory is not intended, because I would like it. In fact i think, that simple explanations are dangerous. Autocrats and conspiracy theorists frequently use them. The technical term is complexity reduction. If a complex matter is said to have a simple cause, like a generator formula, this gives me the creeps. So you are more than welcome to refute it. Popper said, a hypothesis is only valid, if it still is falsifiable. Cosmologists saw a symmetry between matter and antimatter, but then, relievingly, discovered a symmetry break. On one hand, we feel better, if we can understand the world better due to a theory, on the other hand, an explaining theory does not only demagify the image of the world, makes it dull and boring, but also may destroy the world, if people follow it. I see some relevance in identifying the categories- in some context- with composition, determination, classification, and thus building a bridge to systems theory. But i hate it, and think, I will do something completely different.
 

 



Jon, List,

 

 we have three classes of context, in which we "either-or-or" divide the interpretant into

 

-immediate, dynamical, final

 

-emotional, energetic, logical

 

-intentional, effectual, communicational.

 

Maybe these threee classes of context are categorially 1ns, 2ns, 3ns?

 

And if, I think, there should be a second context for the object too, in which it is divided other than into immediate and dynamical.

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Februar 2024 um 00:07 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
An: "Peirce-L" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants



Helmut, List:
 




HR: But why are there more than three interpretants?




 

There are not more than three interpretants, just multiple ways of naming them in different contexts. The relevant debates among Peirce scholars have to do with whether "the divisions of interpretant into immediate, dynamic, and final are archetypal, all other divisions being relatively synonymous with these categories" (Liszka as quoted by Atkin, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/). I have come to agree with this "received view."

 

One alternative that I used to find persuasive is that the emotional/energetic/logical interpretants are orthogonal to the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants (Short), supposedly based on CP 4.536 (1906). However, this passage says only that the actual effect of a sign on an interpreter--its dynamical interpretant--is either a feeling, an exertion, or another sign. As I discuss at length in my Semiotica paper, "Peirce's Evolving Interpretants" (https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHPEI-12), after carefully studying the only texts where Peirce employs the specific terminology of emotional/energetic/logical interpretants (or meanings)--his various manuscript drafts for "Pragmatism" (1907)--it seems clear to me that these are the familiar effects of signs that humans routinely experience as "modifications of consciousness," while the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants are the corresponding effects of signs in general.

 

Please note, no one is claiming anything about Peirce's intentions. Like other scholars of his thought (including Liszka and Short), I am merely offering a plausible interpretive hypothesis grounded firmly in his own words. As William J. Abraham rightly observes (https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=asburyjournal), "Hermeneutics is not so much the study of what an author intended as the study of what the author achieved. If meaning has an equivalence, it is to be located less in intention and more in achievement. What is achieved may be more or less than what the author intended; happily we can be generous and charitable in our initial judgments and trust that intention and achievement may coincide more often than not."

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt







 


On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:42 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:




John, List,

 

I vaguely remember, that at some point in the last weeks, somebody quoted somebody, who said, that the theory is more complicated than the reality it is for. I think, it (the theory) is a fractal. A fractal looks very complicated, but it has a very simple generator formula (like Mandelbrot´s appleman).

 

From Peirce we know, that a firstness has one part (itself), a secondness has two, and a thirdness three. For example, this is so with S-O-I, and with primisense, altersense, medisense. But why are there more than three interpretants?

 

I tentatively propose an elaboration of this generator: A secondness has two ways of dividing it into two parts, and a thirdness has three ways of dividing it into three parts. These two respectively three ways are also categorial: the two ways of dividing

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Helmut, List:

I am not aware of anything in Peirce's writings that would warrant such an
interpretation. Phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of
representing or (more generally) mediating establishes that any one sign is
determined by its two objects (genuine = dynamical, degenerate = immediate)
and determines its three interpretants (genuine = final, degenerate =
dynamical, doubly degenerate = immediate). Again, I understand
the emotional/energetic/logical interpretants to be the concrete
manifestations of the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants in *human *
semiosis.

I also discuss the intentional/effectual/communicational interpretants in
my *Semiotica *paper (link below). Peirce evidently changed his mind about
the first of these soon after introducing them (EP 2:478, 1906 Mar 9)--"I
have thus omitted the *intended *interpretant. So far as the intention is
betrayed in the Sign, it belongs to the immediate Interpretant. So far as
it is not so betrayed, it may be the Interpretant of *another *sign, but it
is in no sense the interpretant of *that *sign" (R 339, 1906 Apr 2). In
other words, since the intentional interpretant is "a determination of the
mind of the utterer," it cannot be an interpretant of the sign being
analyzed; instead, it must be the dynamical interpretant of a *previous *sign
of the same object. On the other hand, since the effectual interpretant is
"a determination of the mind of the interpreter," it clearly corresponds to
the dynamical interpretant of the sign being analyzed; and since the
communicational interpretant is "a determination of that mind into which
the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any
communication should take place," I argue that it must be *internal *to the
sign being analyzed and thus corresponds to the immediate interpretant. The
final interpretant is absent here, because this is an analysis of a
discrete "event of semiosis" as an *ens rationis* prescinded from the real
and continuous process.

Regards,

Jon

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 4:24 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Jon, List,
>
>  we have three classes of context, in which we "either-or-or" divide the
> interpretant into
>
> -immediate, dynamical, final
>
> -emotional, energetic, logical
>
> -intentional, effectual, communicational.
>
> Maybe these threee classes of context are categorially 1ns, 2ns, 3ns?
>
> And if, I think, there should be a second context for the object too, in
> which it is divided other than into immediate and dynamical.
>
> Best, Helmut
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 02. Februar 2024 um 00:07 Uhr
> *Von:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> *An:* "Peirce-L" 
> *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
> Helmut, List:
>
>
> HR: But why are there more than three interpretants?
>
>
> There are *not *more than three interpretants, just multiple ways of
> naming them in different contexts. The relevant debates among Peirce
> scholars have to do with whether "the divisions of interpretant into
> immediate, dynamic, and final are archetypal, all other divisions being
> relatively synonymous with these categories" (Liszka as quoted by Atkin,
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/). I have come to
> agree with this "received view."
>
> One alternative that I used to find persuasive is that the
> emotional/energetic/logical interpretants are *orthogonal *to the
> immediate/dynamical/final interpretants (Short), supposedly based on CP
> 4.536 (1906). However, this passage says only that the *actual *effect of
> a sign on an interpreter--its *dynamical *interpretant--is either a
> feeling, an exertion, or another sign. As I discuss at length in my *Semiotica
> *paper, "Peirce's Evolving Interpretants" (
> https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHPEI-12), after carefully studying the only
> texts where Peirce employs the specific terminology of
> emotional/energetic/logical interpretants (or meanings)--his various
> manuscript drafts for "Pragmatism" (1907)--it seems clear to me that these
> are the familiar effects of signs that humans routinely experience as
> "modifications of consciousness," while the immediate/dynamical/final
> interpretants are the *corresponding *effects of signs in general.
>
> Please note, no one is claiming anything about Peirce's *intentions*.
> Like other scholars of his thought (including Liszka and Short), I am
> merely offering a plausible interpretive hypothesis grounded firmly in his
> own words. As William J. Abraham rightly observes (
> https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=asburyjournal),
> "Hermeneutics is not so much the study of what an author intended as the
> study of what the author achieved. If meaning has an equivalence, it is to
> be located less in intention and more in achievement. What is achieved may
> be more or less than what the author intended; happily we can be generous
> and charitable in our initial judgments and trust that intention and
> achievement may coincide more often tha

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, List,

 

 we have three classes of context, in which we "either-or-or" divide the interpretant into

 

-immediate, dynamical, final

 

-emotional, energetic, logical

 

-intentional, effectual, communicational.

 

Maybe these threee classes of context are categorially 1ns, 2ns, 3ns?

 

And if, I think, there should be a second context for the object too, in which it is divided other than into immediate and dynamical.

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Februar 2024 um 00:07 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
An: "Peirce-L" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants



Helmut, List:
 




HR: But why are there more than three interpretants?




 

There are not more than three interpretants, just multiple ways of naming them in different contexts. The relevant debates among Peirce scholars have to do with whether "the divisions of interpretant into immediate, dynamic, and final are archetypal, all other divisions being relatively synonymous with these categories" (Liszka as quoted by Atkin, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/). I have come to agree with this "received view."

 

One alternative that I used to find persuasive is that the emotional/energetic/logical interpretants are orthogonal to the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants (Short), supposedly based on CP 4.536 (1906). However, this passage says only that the actual effect of a sign on an interpreter--its dynamical interpretant--is either a feeling, an exertion, or another sign. As I discuss at length in my Semiotica paper, "Peirce's Evolving Interpretants" (https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHPEI-12), after carefully studying the only texts where Peirce employs the specific terminology of emotional/energetic/logical interpretants (or meanings)--his various manuscript drafts for "Pragmatism" (1907)--it seems clear to me that these are the familiar effects of signs that humans routinely experience as "modifications of consciousness," while the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants are the corresponding effects of signs in general.

 

Please note, no one is claiming anything about Peirce's intentions. Like other scholars of his thought (including Liszka and Short), I am merely offering a plausible interpretive hypothesis grounded firmly in his own words. As William J. Abraham rightly observes (https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=asburyjournal), "Hermeneutics is not so much the study of what an author intended as the study of what the author achieved. If meaning has an equivalence, it is to be located less in intention and more in achievement. What is achieved may be more or less than what the author intended; happily we can be generous and charitable in our initial judgments and trust that intention and achievement may coincide more often than not."

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt







 


On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:42 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:




John, List,

 

I vaguely remember, that at some point in the last weeks, somebody quoted somebody, who said, that the theory is more complicated than the reality it is for. I think, it (the theory) is a fractal. A fractal looks very complicated, but it has a very simple generator formula (like Mandelbrot´s appleman).

 

From Peirce we know, that a firstness has one part (itself), a secondness has two, and a thirdness three. For example, this is so with S-O-I, and with primisense, altersense, medisense. But why are there more than three interpretants?

 

I tentatively propose an elaboration of this generator: A secondness has two ways of dividing it into two parts, and a thirdness has three ways of dividing it into three parts. These two respectively three ways are also categorial: the two ways of dividing a secondness are firstnessal and secondnessal, and the three ways of dividing a thirdness into three parts are of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns.

 

Like this, there are three times three interpretants.

 

Or many more, if you keep on divi(di)ng.

 

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.



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 repai