Edwina, List:
Now I see why there was confusion before--we are talking about two
different things. You are describing a modified version of Peirce's
(well-established) 3-trichotomy, 10-sign taxonomy; I am asking about his
(unfinished) 10-trichotomy, 66-sign taxonomy. I say that your version is
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
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
See my comments below:
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
Edwina, List:
1. I am following
Edwina, List:
I referenced EP2:481-490, not just EP2:482. Page 483 introduces The Ten
Main Trichotomies of Signs, and the first three are explained in some
detail through page 489; the other seven are only given as sets of three
terms on pp. 489-490, which presumably correspond to Firstness,
Robert, lists,
I agree that sinsigns need not have interpretants and qualisigns need not
have objects. But the question I am raising is Can there be a sign without
an interpreter ? As the following quotes indicate there cannot be signs
that have no interpreter, whether human or non-human (I
See my comments below:
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Order of Interpretant Trichotomies for Sign Classes
Edwina, List:
I referenced
Jon, Edwina, lists,
We went over this issue several times on these lists. I think Edwina is
right that Peirce used the term sign in dual meanings, which can be
explained graphically thus:
fg
Object
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
Edwina, List:
1. I am following Short in using sign to refer to what some call the
representamen or sign-vehicle. The triad is not the sign; rather, the
sign is one of three relata in the triad, along with the object and
interpretant.
2,3,4. My understanding is that every sign has three
Jon, Lists
I believe that, at one level of the semiotic process, we can treat the sign as
one of the three relata in the triad. Of course, at the next stage of
interpretation, the interpretant may itself function as a sign. Are there any
restrictions on having some combination of
11 matches
Mail list logo
