Jon, list, see my replies below 1) JON: It sounds like you take the view that the immediate/dynamic/final interpretants are the same as the emotional/energetic/logical interpretants. I have not definitively made up my mind about that, but lean more toward seeing them as distinct trichotomies.
EDWINA: Yes, I consider the two sets of terms to refer to the same actions. I disagree with adding more Interpretants to the process. 2) JON: The English word "man" is a Symbol, which makes it a Legisign or Type, which means that its Being is general. While it indeed only "exists" in its instantiations--Replicas, which are Sinsigns or Tokens--it is Real independently of them. This is NOT Platonism, it is Peircean three-category Realism. EDWINA: Yes, the word man is a symbol. But the symbol exists only within the triadic semiosis; that is, the Legisign doesn't exist 'per se'. It is REAL as a general but generals only exist within instantiation. So, the word 'man' only functions as a symbol when it is instantiated in a particular triad - whether it be the single man or the Argument referring to Man. 3) JON: One thing on which we do agree is that "the full range of meaning falls within the purview of Thirdness." But this says nothing more than that meaning is a matter of the Interpretants--all three of them--rather than the Sign or the Objects. I am not aware of anything in Peirce's writings that warrants characterizing the Immediate Interpretant as internal to the individual, rather than internal to the Sign. EDWINA: But the Sign operates only within individuals! The semiosic triad doesn't operate outside of matter - whether that matter be a man, a tree, an insect....Mind is not separate from matter. That's Cartesian and Peirce is not a Cartesian. And I consider that meaning is embodied within the Object - after all, as Peirce wrote, 'matter is effete Mind'. 6.25; and 'matter is mind hidebound with habits' 6.158. Meaning is embodied within Thirdness. The object is a Form of Meaning..and makes more meaning in its interactions with other Signs [instantiations of matter]...and these develop the Habits even more. 4) JON: Regarding determination, as I said before, I understand it mainly as constraint, not causation. The Dynamic Object can only generate certain Immediate Objects, and each of those can only be represented by certain Signs. The Final Interpretant will be one or more of the Dynamic Interpretants, which will all fall within the range of the Immediate Interpretant, which is dictated by the Sign. EDWINA: I consider that the semiosic process is more complex than you outline. The DO may indeed, in its own nature, have a limited range of data output that can become an IO - IF THAT DO were singularly causal of that IO. But it isn't. For example, when I, who am processing input data from an external DO, arrive at my own IO [and I maintain it is internal to me]...that same input data is merged with other input data. How do I separate them? And I don't agree that the IO 'can only be represented by certain Signs' [I presume you mean the Representamen]. If I am receiving input data, a noise and a visual image, then, my ability to process this sensual input....is transformed by my habits/knowledge [Representamen]...and I can come up with various Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants. 'It's just noise; it's a bird; it's a plane; it's Superman. The Final Interpretant involves a community. 5) JON: I am not sure what you mean when you say, "But a Sign operates within matter!" Are you suggesting that Signs ONLY operate within matter? I am pretty sure that Peirce would never condone such a statement. EDWINA: Yes - I do suggest that Signs [by which I mean the triadic semiosic process as well as the category of Thirdness]...only operates within instantiations. And instantiations are existential in time and space. That means that they are material. That includes mental concepts which operate within the frog's leg as well as the human mind. I simply don't see Signs, both the triad and the Thirdness...operating outside of such particularization. 6) JON: Again, the Immediate Object is internal to the Sign itself. I took "individual site-of-semeiosis" as a substitute for "human mind"; if this is not how you are using that term, then I guess that I need you to explain it. EDWINA: No- I don't separate Mind and Matter. Nor does Peirce. See his The Law of Mind, 6.150 and on; 6.255 and on. 6.277 and on..... Regards, Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
