Robert, List:
RM: I would point out that these discussions focus on what is happening in
the interpretants of the hexadic sign and I have even seen that a subject
on their plethora -which I have not yet been able to consult- has been
created.
I hope that you can take some time to review that
Auke, List:
AvB: The relevant part: "I have been accustomed to identify this
[immediate interpretant] with the effect the sign first produces or may
produce upon a mind".
Peirce leaves two options open for the immediate interpretant here--it
is *either
*the effect that the sign first
John,
Thanks for this info. I came to this conclusion by analyzing the 8th signtype
(rhematic, symbolic, legisign) from the point of view of KiF. ()= involvement.
The outer brackets signify that the process is not yet finished. It just are
fragments of what is involved in the proces: sheet,
John, All ...
For those who may have missed the last 50 times I linked to it,
there is some discussion of Aristotle's “On Interpretation” in
the context of Peirce & Dewey on interpretation & inquiry here:
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
Jon and Auke,
General principle: Never assume that Peirce was
unaware of or hadn't considered some issue. Peirce had studied Aristotle
in depth, and he would certainly be familiar with the first paragraph of
_On Interpretation_:
Aristotle> First we must determine what are
noun (onoma)
and
Robert, I strongly agree with the issues you raised and your
interpretation of them.RM> it may not be a good methodology
to give such
a preference for interpretation in semiosis without focusing the analysis on
the whole process... how individual semiosis articulates with global
semiosis?Yes.
Cf: Triadic Relations • 2
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/24/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-2/
Examples from Semiotics
===
The study of signs — the full variety of significant forms of expression — in relation to all the affairs signs are
significant of, and in
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list
I would say that here, you are reminding us that semiosis is a
triadic process, and to focus only on the latter part of the
process, the 'I' or Interpretant section, ignores this fundamental
triad.
Part of my post remained in French. I apologize for that.
"I consider that the text below is fundamental to justify the use of a new
concept that will fulfill this function of "social counter-reaction" of
individual semiosis:"
Best,
RM
Le lun. 25 mai 2020 à 12:19, robert marty a
écrit :
>
Edwina, Jon Alan, Helmut, List
Most of the discussions on the list have focused philosophical questions on
final causes, efficient causes, goals, etc. ... and many disagreements have
been found ... I would point out that these discussions focus on what is
happening in the interpretants of the
Jon Alen,
You cite:
CSP: I do not mean by "collateral observation" acquaintance with the system of
signs. What is so gathered is not COLLATERAL. It is on the contrary the
prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the Sign. (CP 8.179, EP 2:494,
1909)
and continue:
The immediate
11 matches
Mail list logo
