Those are two totally different activities. The test is not a
> method of communication by means of sentences. It is a method for
> determining the structure of a sign.
>
> John
>
> --
> *From*: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
> *Sent*: 2/15/24 9
Jon, John, List,
The answer "A brooch" looks like a rheme, but as an answer it is a proposition, as "he gives her" is just omitted for the reason, that both know this opening. A triadic proposition, I think, if not already is an argument, at least involves a "because". For example if you say;
lan Schmidt"
Sent: 2/15/24 9:47 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who,
What, When, Where, How, and Why)
John, List:
At the risk of belaboring the point, I will take one more stab at showing why I
think that Peirce would not have agreed wi
John, List:
At the risk of belaboring the point, I will take one more stab at showing
why I think that Peirce would *not *have agreed with distinguishing 1ns,
2ns, and 3ns by aligning them with the answers to who/what/when/where, how,
and why questions as (allegedly) monadic, dyadic, and triadic.
it the correct information.
John
From: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
Sent: 2/15/24 2:56 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, Sign Classification, and 3ns (was Who,
What, When, Where, How, and Why)
John, List:
It seems that we both made mistakes when addressing the e-mails
Jerry, Jon, List,
Helmut had an excellent suggestion: Every why-question can be answered with a
because-answer. Therefore, every instance of Thirdness can be explained in
sentence that contains the word 'because'. See my comments below and Helmut's
original note below that.
If you find my
Helmut, List:
Peirce's three universal categories (1ns/2ns/3ns) are discovered in the
primal positive science of phaneroscopy (quality/reaction/mediation) and
diagrammatized in the hypothetical science of mathematics
(monadic/dyadic/triadic relations).
I do not know whether anyone has posted a
Helmut,
Thanks for mentioning the word 'because'. That's another way to explain the
3-way connection that answers a why-question, In general, every instance of
thirdness that relates (A B C) can be explained by a sentence of the form "A is
related to B because C."But some linguistic
List, Jon
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 12:56 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> There are indeed six classes of signs according to their dyadic relations
> with their two external interpretants (immediate is internal), but they have
> nothing to do with "the six basic question words.”
Thanks for
John, List:
It seems that we both made mistakes when addressing the e-mails reproduced
below. I apologize for sending mine to the List, it was intended for only
Gary as its moderator. Because of our unfortunate history of contentious
interactions, I often use him as a sounding board whenever I
Supplement: Ok, I can access Commens Dictionary again!
John, List,
The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I
John, List,
The answer to "why", "because" always needs two premisses, with itself being the third. So a thirdness is the answer to "why". Firstness can just say "I". Secondness is a second following a first, and so can say "I am". Obviously, just by having a first for predecessor, not because
Jon, List,
Thank you for noting that I had intended to push the SEND ALL button for my
previous note (copied at the end).
But I stand by my claim that every example of Thirdness can be interpreted as
an answer to a question that begins with the word "Why".
I agree with your point that every
List:
JFS: And there are six kinds of reference that a sign my have to its
interpretants.
Although Peirce discusses "reference to an interpretant" in his
groundbreaking early paper, "On a New List of Categories" (CP 1.553-559, EP
1:5-10, 1868), as far as I can tell, he *never *uses that phrase
Edwina, List,
I am not denying the fact that interpretants, as defined by Peirce, exist, and
I am not denying that Peirce's 3-way distinction is good.
But you said that you had not studied the kinds of details that the linguists
observe and specify.
My claim is that any theory that does not
John, list
I continue to either misunderstand or object - I don’t know which term I
should use - to your rejection of the role of the Interpretants. I simply don’t
see how the semiosic process can function - and it IS a function - without the
necessary role of the Interpretants. How can you
Edwina, List,
As a logician and mathematician, Peirce understood the methods of precise
reasoning in lengthy deductions. But as a linguist and engineer, he also
understood the issues of continuity or synechism.
In ordinary language, every word has a broad range of meanings. The senses
John
I don't see what linguistic understanding of words has to do with the
interpretants.
The utterer’s Object [his words] can only carry his reality [phaneron] within
the words he knows. - and as Peirce said - [can’t recall the reference] if the
Object is unknown, then, the words used to
Edwina,
I was just copying what Short said. If you don't have it, I'll send you the
PDF of his entire book.
All Peirce scholars agree that Peirce had settled on three kinds of
interpretants. I don't deny that. But there is no information about how
anybody can determine how the utterer can
piro wrote:
> Yes, it does, Jon.
>
> M.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Alan Schmidt
> Sent: Feb 3, 2024 2:04 PM
> To: Peirce-L
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
>
>
> Michael, List:
>
> I honestly do not know much about linguistics, but I wo
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.
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
t; 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 i
nt: 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
>
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
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?
>>
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,
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-
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'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
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
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
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
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
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. Fe
, 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]
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,
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
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 01. Februar 2024 um 00:37 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa"
An: "Peirce List" , &quo
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
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
Edwina,
I strongly agree. And as I wrote in the thread
"Tree structure", I believe that the best way to analyze and
explain the issues is to illustrate them with actual examples. He used
more examples in his lectures and letters to actual people. But his MSS
to himself had very few examples
I'd agree that what Auke is outlining is a very important area of
discussion - namely, the nature of the Interpretants in the semiosic
process.
We each have different areas of interest - from the terminological
to the linguistic to mathematics..etc. My particular interest is in
42 matches
Mail list logo
