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
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
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
