Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can there be an interpretant without an interpreter ?
My view is that there cannot be a Sign, that triadic existentiality, without a connection, an interaction, a relation...with that which is not-the-Sign. Is this Other an 'Interpreter'? Not in the sense in which we commonly understand the term of 'interpreter', for the cognitive process of 'interpretation' is, within the Peircean analysis, going on in BOTH sites; that of the Sign and that of the Other. Without this interaction, that connected cognitive process, [which affects both sides so to speak], then, there cannot be a Sign. Therefore - to say that 'an interpretant is any effect that a sign may have (immediate)...is something I do not agree with, as this suggests essentialism, i.e., where a result is caused without any interaction. I also disagree with the idea of would have for the final interpretant for the same reason; that final interpretant doesn't exist...until it exists. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Sungchul Ji ; peirce-L@list.iupui.edu Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can there be an interpretant without an interpreter ? Sung, List: My understanding is that an interpretant is any effect that a sign may have (immediate), does have (dynamic), or would have (final). It is most commonly discussed in contexts where such effects are indeed on the mind of an interpreter, but Peirce was hoping to generalize his theory in such a way that this would not be its only application. As he wrote to Lady Welby: QUOTE Peirce, 12/23/1908, EP2:478 I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of upon a person is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood. END QUOTE By the way, regarding your comments today in the other thread, note that Peirce here clearly uses Sign (capitalized) to designate one relatum among three, not the triad itself. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: In a recent article (Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in organic nature, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology XXX (2015) 1-6), Kalevi wrote: . . . . interpretant is enough; there can be interpretant without an interpreter. Is this true ? Can Kalevi or anyone else on these lists give me some example of this ? I always thought that Peirce defined an interpretant as the effect that a sign has on the mind of an interpreter. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part ? -- - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can there be an interpretant without an interpreter ?
Sung, List: My understanding is that an interpretant is *any *effect that a sign *may *have (immediate), *does *have (dynamic), or *would *have (final). It is most commonly discussed in contexts where such effects are indeed on the mind of an interpreter, but Peirce was hoping to generalize his theory in such a way that this would not be its only application. As he wrote to Lady Welby: QUOTE Peirce, 12/23/1908, EP2:478 I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of upon a person is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood. END QUOTE By the way, regarding your comments today in the other thread, note that Peirce here clearly uses Sign (capitalized) to designate one relatum among three, not the triad itself. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: In a recent article (Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in organic nature, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology XXX (2015) 1-6), Kalevi wrote: . . . . interpretant is enough; there can be interpretant without an interpreter. Is this true ? Can Kalevi or anyone else on these lists give me some example of this ? I always thought that Peirce defined an interpretant as the effect that a sign has on the mind of an interpreter. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part ? - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can there be an interpretant without an interpreter ?
Jon, lists, (1) I understand Peirce's intention: He wanted to generalize anthroposemiosis to include physiosemiosis (i.e., sign processes in abiotic systems or physicochemical realms), the combination of both of which I often refer to as cosmosemiosis [1]. In other words, I believe that Peircean semiosis (or ITR, Irreversible Triadic Relation, in my discussions) applies to the whole of the Universe, including life and non-life and throughout its evolutionary history starting from the Big Bang. (2) I think it is more logical to assume that Sign is irreducibly triadic and sign represents a prescinded version of Sign, i.e., sign highlights the two arrows attached to it directly while hiding the third arrow that by-pass it. All the best. Sung Reference: [1] Ji, S. (2012). Ji, S. (2012). Complementarity. http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Excerpts_Chapters_2_complementarity_08192012.pdf In: *Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.* Springer, New York. Section 2.3, pp. 24-50, Table 2.13. PDF at http://www.conformon.net under Publications Book Chapters . On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com wrote: Sung, List: My understanding is that an interpretant is *any *effect that a sign *may *have (immediate), *does *have (dynamic), or *would *have (final). It is most commonly discussed in contexts where such effects are indeed on the mind of an interpreter, but Peirce was hoping to generalize his theory in such a way that this would not be its only application. As he wrote to Lady Welby: QUOTE Peirce, 12/23/1908, EP2:478 I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of upon a person is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood. END QUOTE By the way, regarding your comments today in the other thread, note that Peirce here clearly uses Sign (capitalized) to designate one relatum among three, not the triad itself. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote: In a recent article (Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in organic nature, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology XXX (2015) 1-6), Kalevi wrote: . . . . interpretant is enough; there can be interpretant without an interpreter. Is this true ? Can Kalevi or anyone else on these lists give me some example of this ? I always thought that Peirce defined an interpretant as the effect that a sign has on the mind of an interpreter. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part ? -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
[PEIRCE-L] Can there be an interpretant without an interpreter ?
Hi, In a recent article (Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in organic nature, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology XXX (2015) 1-6), Kalevi wrote: . . . . interpretant is enough; there can be interpretant without an interpreter. Is this true ? Can Kalevi or anyone else on these lists give me some example of this ? I always thought that Peirce defined an interpretant as the effect that a sign has on the mind of an interpreter. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part ? All the best. Sung -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
