Jon, you quoted Peirce as saying
"The interpretant of a term, then, and that which (101314-1) it stands to are identical." I thought he also said somewhere something to the effect that "The interpretant is the effect a sign has on the mind (101314-2) of the interpreter." According to (101314-2), the interpretant and that something to which it stands for something are not identical. Did Peirce contradict himself or am I missing something ? With 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 > STOI. Semiotic Theory Of Information > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14614 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14616 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14626 > > STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion > ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14628 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14639 > ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14640 > > Edwina, > > I'm not sure where you got all this stuff about "the other". You appear > to be > reading some "other" meaning into what I wrote than what is found in my > words. > > The concept being invoked here is that of an interpreter. Some > interpreters are > others and some interpreters are selves and some interpreters are > tantamount to > whole indefinite communities of interpretation. Peirce's sign relations > are > general enough to handle all those cases and the interactions among them. > > I linked in another post to one of my favorite passages from Peirce one > where > he explains the relationship between interpreters and interpretants. > > Interpreters and Interpretants > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14674 > > When we strip away from the interpreter every accidental feature that it > might > otherwise have, what remains is precisely the sign relation, the > collection of > triples of the form (object, sign, interpretant) that defines that > interpreter > in so far as it concerns the theory of semiotics. > > That is the context in which Peirce's concept of information has its > meaning. > > Regards, > > Jon > > Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Jon - I think there's a problem in your assertion of a reliance on 'the > > other' for information to exist. First - I don't rely on repeating what > > so-and-so said about Peirce and information.. And that, of course, must > > include your own statements. [And if you are referring to my reference > > to Castells, he doesn't reference Peirce.] > > > > But, you yourself wrote that > > > > "Information is the property of a message or sign by virtue of which it > can > > reduce the uncertainty of an interpreter about the state of an object." > > > > This, again, relies on 'the other' and what 'the other' perceives, > > suggesting that if there is no 'uncertain other' - then, information > > doesn't exist. This suggests that an organism contains no information > in > > itself, which deprives the categorical mode of Thirdness in that > > organism of any meaning. And deprives the categorical mode of > Secondness > > in that same organism of any meaning. > > > > I certainly support the view that ALL Signs are networked and in > > interaction with other Signs. There is no such thing as an isolate > Sign. > > My problem is your claim that information only exists to reduce the > > uncertainty of an Other, whereas, I would consider that it exists as an > > integral component of the morphological existence of the Sign - and it > > will be evident in any of its interactions with other Signs...whether > > they be befuddled, uncertain or whatever. > > > > Edwina > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
