Auke, List: AB: The immediate interpretant always is specific for a given response as Short has it.
That is not how I understand it. The Immediate Interpretant is internal to the Sign, and corresponds to what Peirce at least once called "the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the utterer" (EP 2.478). Consequently, it is not tied to any *actual *response (Dynamic Interpretant) in an interpreter; rather, it defines the range of *possible *responses. "My Immediate Interpretant is implied in the fact that each Sign must have its peculiar Interpretability before it gets any Interpreter ... The Immediate Interpretant is an abstraction, consisting in a Possibility" (SS 111). Analogous to the blackboard diagram in Peirce's cosmology, the Immediate Interpretant is a continuum of potentiality on which the Dynamic Interpretant is actualized, and the universal tendency to take habits then leads to the development of the Final Interpretant. AB: So, if an immediate interpretant, being involved in a dynamical interpretant, has its feeling, action and thought modalities, those very same modalities may be assumed to be present in the dynamical interpretant. The Immediate Interpretant *determines* the Dynamic Interpretant; i.e., whether the Immediate Interpretant is a Possible, Existent, or Necessitant *constrains* whether the Dynamic Interpretant can be a Possible, Existent, or Necessitant. If the Immediate Interpretant is limited to a range of feelings, then the Dynamic Interpretant must be an actual feeling. If the Immediate Interpretant also includes a range of actions, then the Dynamic Interpretant can be an actual action or feeling, but it cannot be an actual thought. If the Immediate Interpretant further includes a range of thoughts, then the Dynamic Interpretant can be an actual thought, action, or feeling. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > Jon, > > > > I agree with: > > my current understanding--still tentative, admittedly--is that the > Immediate Interpretant is the range of all *possible *Interpretants, the > Dynamic Interpretant is the occurrence of any *actual *Interpretant, and > the the Final Interpretant is the development of a *habitual *Interpretant; > i.e., a habit of interpretation. > > > > That is besides one detail. The immediate interpretant always is specific > for a given response as Short has it. However, in between a sign and its > interpretant a lot of experimentation in the imagination (as Peirce recalls > his brother gives as an explanation for an apt reaction on the occasion of > a dress catching fire) may have taken place. However, in each run through > the imagination only one immediate interpretant is present. > > > > With regard to: > > Each of these can then be trichotomized into feeling, action, and > thought. In my mind, this follows the order of determination that leads to > classification, as well as the order of semeiotic process. Universes and > Categories come into play with the observation that this approach defines > the three Interpretants in terms of modality, rather than dividing each > individual Interpretant on that basis. > > - > > > > I suggest to apply Ockham’s razor in order to get a description of the > process in which the sign aspects develop their import. In a dynamical > nterpretant aspect, an immediate interpretant aspect is involved. So, if an > immediate interpretant, being involved in a dynamical interpretant, has its > feeling, action and thought modalities, those very same modalities may be > assumed to be present in the dynamical interpretant. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Auke van Breemen >
----------------------------- 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 .
