Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[John F Sowa]

Michael, Jon, Edwina, Gary, List,

First, I apologize to everybody about my use of "RIP" about anything Peirce 
wrote.  I agree with Edwina that the three-way distinction is important, but I 
must emphasize that the amount of research in the cognitive sciences during the 
past century is immense.  As the article by Atkin shows,  Peirce was unsure of 
how to continue, there is no consensus among Peirce scholars about how to 
continue, and Peirce himself was asking Welby for her advice.

I also thank Jon for the link to a chapter of Michael's 1983 book.  The link 
below points to one chapter, but it's possible to use that link to go forwards 
or backwards to download the entire book.  So far, I have only downloaded and 
read that chapter.  And it shows the vast amount of linguistic issues that must 
be considered.

But that chapter is already 41 years old.  I'd like to ask Michael for any 
links to more recent writings, by himself or others, that would show ongoing 
research on the issues that Peirce began to explore.

In summary, I don't want to discourage anybody from studying Peirce's writings. 
 It's important to note that his writings on mathematical logic and semeiotic 
are fundamental.  Many of the points he made are still at the forefront of 
research in the 21st century.  But beyond his three-way distinction about 
interpretants, his writings on that subject are tentative and incomplete.

Michael's 1983 book shows how much more was known in linguistics, and I'd like 
to ask Michael for some pointers to more recent writings by himself or others 
on this topic

John
__

From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 

Michael, List:

I honestly do not know much about linguistics, but I wonder if this online 
chapter from your 1983 book, The Sense of Grammar: Language as Semiotic, is 
still a good summary of your relevant views.

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/oa_monograph/chapter/3056317

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Michael, List:

I honestly do not know much about linguistics, but I wonder if this online
chapter from your 1983 book, *The Sense of Grammar: Language as Semiotic*,
is still a good summary of your relevant views.

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/oa_monograph/chapter/3056317

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 12:43 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Edwina, List,
>
> I too hope that Michael might summarize at least some relevant aspects of
> his work in 'markedness' for the List, or at least offer a few excerpts
> from his several books and papers which take up the topic. Having read some
> of Michael's work on markedness, its connection to meaning in Peirce's
> sense seems to me patent as this excerpt from the Wikipedia article,
> "Markedness," suggests.
>
> The work of Cornelius van Schooneveld, Edna Andrews
> , Rodney Sangster, Yishai
> Tobin and others on 'semantic invariance' (different general meanings
> reflected in the contextual specific meanings of features) has further
> developed the semantic analysis
>  of
> grammatical items in terms of marked and unmarked features. Other
> semiotically-oriented work has investigated the isomorphism of form and
> meaning with less emphasis on invariance, including the efforts of Henning
> Andersen, Michael Shapiro, and Edwin Battistella. Shapiro and Andrews have
> especially made connections between the semiotic of C. S. Peirce
>  and markedness, treating it
> "as species of interpretant" in Peirce's sign–object–interpretant triad.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness
>
>
> I do not know Edna Andrew's work in this area.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary Richmond
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:25 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> Michael - Why not instead provide us with a brief discussion of your
>> discussion?
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Michael Shapiro  wrote:
>>
>> To all participants in this discussion of interpretants I would like to
>> recommend that they take a look at my discussion of markedness in one or
>> more of my books, the latest being *The Logic of Lasnguage* (New York:
>> Springer, 2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship
>> between sign and object.
>>
>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina, List,

I too hope that Michael might summarize at least some relevant aspects of
his work in 'markedness' for the List, or at least offer a few excerpts
from his several books and papers which take up the topic. Having read some
of Michael's work on markedness, its connection to meaning in Peirce's
sense seems to me patent as this excerpt from the Wikipedia article,
"Markedness," suggests.

The work of Cornelius van Schooneveld, Edna Andrews
, Rodney Sangster, Yishai Tobin
and others on 'semantic invariance' (different general meanings reflected
in the contextual specific meanings of features) has further developed
the semantic
analysis  of
grammatical items in terms of marked and unmarked features. Other
semiotically-oriented work has investigated the isomorphism of form and
meaning with less emphasis on invariance, including the efforts of Henning
Andersen, Michael Shapiro, and Edwin Battistella. Shapiro and Andrews have
especially made connections between the semiotic of C. S. Peirce
 and markedness, treating it
"as species of interpretant" in Peirce's sign–object–interpretant triad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness


I do not know Edna Andrew's work in this area.

Best,

Gary Richmond

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:25 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Michael - Why not instead provide us with a brief discussion of your
> discussion?
>
> Edwina
>
> On Feb 3, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Michael Shapiro  wrote:
>
> To all participants in this discussion of interpretants I would like to
> recommend that they take a look at my discussion of markedness in one or
> more of my books, the latest being *The Logic of Lasnguage* (New York:
> Springer, 2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship
> between sign and object.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edwina Taborsky 
> Sent: Feb 3, 2024 7:46 AM
> To: Edwina Taborsky 
> Cc: John F Sowa , Peirce List ,
> CG 
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
>
>
> Again, if I might continue with the importance of the hexadic semiosic
> process, in that it enables complex adaptation…within interaction
>
> That is - the reality of two Object relations, the Dynamic and the
> Immediate acknowledges that not all off the input data from the external
> interaction will be accepted by the capacity of the sign -vehicle and its
> representamen. And indeed, some of this data might be changed /affected by
> other input happening at the same time.
>
> Then - the three Interpretants are vital.
>
> The first one, the Immediate, confines the reaction to the internal
> experience of the individual. It goes no further. I think this is important
> - if we think of a disease - it would confine the infection to one
> individual. If we think of another situation - it would confine the
> sensation of the experience to one individual [ rather than mob hysteria].
>
> The next one, the Dynamic, is important - since it produces an external
> response to the input data and brings in local ‘observers’, so to speak,
> who treat this external Interfpretant as a Sign in itself. //something that
> they might react to. .
>
> The last one, the Final - moves the response to a general, common one.
>
> An example would be a sound heard by an individual in a group of monkeys.
> This one individual might only feel a subjective internal response
> [Immediae Interpretant] and other than that - continue gathering fruit].
> But - it might instead, produce an external result [ the monkey would
> scream]. This would act as its own triadic Sign to the other monkeys….who
> would recognize it as an Alarm.  Over time - this particular sound by the
> monkey is understood, always, as an Alarm.
>
> That is - I think the function of the three Interpretants, nuanced as they
> are, is vital.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Feb 2, 2024, at 7:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
> 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
> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Edwina Taborsky]

Michael - Why not instead provide us with a brief discussion of your discussion?

Edwina

> On Feb 3, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Michael Shapiro  wrote:
> 
> To all participants in this discussion of interpretants I would like to 
> recommend that they take a look at my discussion of markedness in one or more 
> of my books, the latest being The Logic of Lasnguage (New York: Springer, 
> 2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship between 
> sign and object.
> -Original Message-
> From: Edwina Taborsky mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>>
> Sent: Feb 3, 2024 7:46 AM
> To: Edwina Taborsky mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>>
> Cc: John F Sowa mailto:s...@bestweb.net>>, Peirce List 
> mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>, CG 
> mailto:c...@lists.iccs-conference.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
> 
>  
> Again, if I might continue with the importance of the hexadic semiosic 
> process, in that it enables complex adaptation…within interaction  
>  
> That is - the reality of two Object relations, the Dynamic and the Immediate 
> acknowledges that not all off the input data from the external interaction 
> will be accepted by the capacity of the sign -vehicle and its representamen. 
> And indeed, some of this data might be changed /affected by other input 
> happening at the same time.
>  
> Then - the three Interpretants are vital.
>  
> The first one, the Immediate, confines the reaction to the internal 
> experience of the individual. It goes no further. I think this is important - 
> if we think of a disease - it would confine the infection to one individual. 
> If we think of another situation - it would confine the sensation of the 
> experience to one individual [ rather than mob hysteria]. 
>  
> The next one, the Dynamic, is important - since it produces an external 
> response to the input data and brings in local ‘observers’, so to speak, who 
> treat this external Interfpretant as a Sign in itself. //something that they 
> might react to. .
>  
> The last one, the Final - moves the response to a general, common one.
>  
> An example would be a sound heard by an individual in a group of monkeys. 
> This one individual might only feel a subjective internal response [Immediae 
> Interpretant] and other than that - continue gathering fruit]. But - it might 
> instead, produce an external result [ the monkey would scream]. This would 
> act as its own triadic Sign to the other monkeys….who would recognize it as 
> an Alarm.  Over time - this particular sound by the monkey is understood, 
> always, as an Alarm.
>  
> That is - I think the function of the three Interpretants, nuanced as they 
> are, is vital.
>  
> Edwina
> 
> On Feb 2, 2024, at 7:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky  > wrote:
> 
> 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] , 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Michael Shapiro]

To all participants in this discussion of interpretants I would like to 
recommend that they take a look at my discussion of markedness in one or more 
of my books, the latest being The Logic of Lasnguage (New York: Springer, 
2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship between sign 
and object.
-Original Message-
From: Edwina Taborsky 
Sent: Feb 3, 2024 7:46 AM
To: Edwina Taborsky 
Cc: John F Sowa , Peirce List , CG 

Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

Again, if I might continue with the importance of the hexadic semiosic process, 
in that it enables complex adaptationwithin interaction   
That is - the reality of two Object relations, the Dynamic and the Immediate 
acknowledges that not all off the input data from the external interaction will 
be accepted by the capacity of the sign -vehicle and its representamen. And 
indeed, some of this data might be changed /affected by other input happening 
at the same time.
 
Then - the three Interpretants are vital.
 
The first one, the Immediate, confines the reaction to the internal experience 
of the individual. It goes no further. I think this is important - if we think 
of a disease - it would confine the infection to one individual. If we think of 
another situation - it would confine the sensation of the experience to one 
individual [ rather than mob hysteria]. 
 
The next one, the Dynamic, is important - since it produces an external 
response to the input data and brings in local observers, so to 
speak, who treat this external Interfpretant as a Sign in itself. //something 
that they might react to. .
 
The last one, the Final - moves the response to a general, common one.
 
An example would be a sound heard by an individual in a group of monkeys. This 
one individual might only feel a subjective internal response [Immediae 
Interpretant] and other than that - continue gathering fruit]. But - it might 
instead, produce an external result [ the monkey would scream]. This would act 
as its own triadic Sign to the other monkeys.who would recognize it as 
an Alarm.  Over time - this particular sound by the monkey is understood, 
always, as an Alarm.
 
That is - I think the function of the three Interpretants, nuanced as they are, 
is vital.
 
Edwina
On Feb 2, 2024, at 7:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
John, list 
1] I dont know what you mean by His Commentaryin 
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 dont 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; aetc 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 
Peirces 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 existentiallythat 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  birds 
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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants

[Edwina Taborsky]

Again, if I might continue with the importance of the hexadic semiosic process, 
in that it enables complex adaptation…within interaction  

That is - the reality of two Object relations, the Dynamic and the Immediate 
acknowledges that not all off the input data from the external interaction will 
be accepted by the capacity of the sign -vehicle and its representamen. And 
indeed, some of this data might be changed /affected by other input happening 
at the same time.

Then - the three Interpretants are vital.

The first one, the Immediate, confines the reaction to the internal experience 
of the individual. It goes no further. I think this is important - if we think 
of a disease - it would confine the infection to one individual. If we think of 
another situation - it would confine the sensation of the experience to one 
individual [ rather than mob hysteria]. 

The next one, the Dynamic, is important - since it produces an external 
response to the input data and brings in local ‘observers’, so to speak, who 
treat this external Interfpretant as a Sign in itself. //something that they 
might react to. .

The last one, the Final - moves the response to a general, common one.

An example would be a sound heard by an individual in a group of monkeys. This 
one individual might only feel a subjective internal response [Immediae 
Interpretant] and other than that - continue gathering fruit]. But - it might 
instead, produce an external result [ the monkey would scream]. This would act 
as its own triadic Sign to the other monkeys….who would recognize it as an 
Alarm.  Over time - this particular sound by the monkey is understood, always, 
as an Alarm.

That is - I think the function of the three Interpretants, nuanced as they are, 
is vital.

Edwina

> On Feb 2, 2024, at 7:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
> 
> 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.
>>