Jon,
Thanks for your questions. Some short answers below.
With regard to sheets I suggest to read for
a. Sheets of assertion:
Zeman, J. (1977). Peirce's Theory of Signs. In T. A. Seboek (Ed.), A
Perfusion
of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
b. Descriptive sheets
De Tienne:
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphanscience.pdf
[1]
c. Semiotic sheet, for a first orientation my 2007 paper will do.
_The relevance of the concept semiotic sheet for the current
discussion._
A signs gives rise to its interpretant sign. Lets picture this as
follows:
Sign -proces of interpretation- interpretant/sign -proces of
interpretation- interpretant/sign – I/S – I/S, etc.
Short is interested in sign types and focusses on the
interpretant/sign. My interest is in the intermediate processes
between two signs. In order to get a run of an interpretation process
an interpreting system (of whatever nature) must be assumed. Lets
reserve the term ‘semiotic sheet’ for this interpreting system.
This interpreting system is a sign itself, cf Peirce’s dictum ‘Man
is a sign’. So, interpretation starts when a sign inscribes itself
in an interpreting sign or semiotic sheet.
(1) Looked at as a first, in itself, we have the radical subjectivist
(Stamper) or phenomenological view (architectonic of sciences).
(2) Looked at as a second, as related to a sign that inscribes itself,
we have the actualist (Stamper) or semiotic view, (architectonic of
sciences). But only to the extend that an interpreting system
interprets a sign (critic).
(3) Looked at as a thirdness, we have the rhetorical part of
semiotics. Stamper, being in his 80ies, started back then from Morris
and didn’t get a clear view on this communicative view on the
matter. Here we are concerned with two sheets conversing with each
other (a,b -> goal of a and b,a -> goal of b).
The connection between the two trichotomies of interpretants
(emotional, energetic and logical; fruit of phenomenological or
radical subjectivist considerations) and iimmediate, dynamical and
normal interpretants; fruit of semiotics proper) can be established in
2. It sets of with
Kant gives the erroneous view that ideas are presented separated and
then thought together
by the mind. This is his doctrine that a mental synthesis precedes
every analysis.
What really happens is that something is presented which in itself has
no parts, but which
nevertheless is analyzed by the mind, that is to say, its having parts
consists in this that the
mind afterward recognizes those parts in it. Those partial ideas are
really not in the first
idea, in itself, though they are separated out from it. It is a case
of destructive distillation.
W6:449, CP 1.384
So, interpretation sets of with a collection of qualia. In
phaneroscopy it is called the phaneren, in semiotics it is termed the
emotional interpretant:
The first proper significate effect of a sign is a feeling produced by
it
[. . . ]. It [a tune; AvB] conveys, and is intended to convey, the
composer's
musical ideas; but these usually consist merely in a series of
feelings (CP
5.475).
From this further interpretants may evolve. First the energetive
interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate,
dynamical and normal).
In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on the
process of interpretation.
Best, Auke
VAN: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
VERZONDEN: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18
AAN: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl>
CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
ONDERWERP: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's
Cosmology)
Auke, List:
AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping,
no conclusions.
Yes, Peirce was right to call himself "a pioneer, or rather a
backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call
semiotic" (CP 5.488; 1907).
AB: I in particular disagree with your: "However, as I have
suggested previously, the three Interpretants themselves seem to be
more properly characterized as possible (Immediate), actual
(Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each divided into
feeling/action/thought."
It is a working hypothesis, at best. I am certainly open to being
convinced otherwise.
AB: It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De
Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each
other according to the mature division of the sciences.
I am not too familiar with these concepts and would like to learn more
about them, so I will review your 2007 paper, which I apparently
downloaded a while ago. Would you mind elaborating their specific
relevance to the current discussion, and perhaps suggest some
additional reading that I could do?
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Auke van Breemen
<a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote:
Jon,
As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no
conclusions. The EP only gives a fragment of the groping. As much of
his other writings gives a lot more fragments. It may be that only
not being able to regard the blackboard (or in its mundane character
the sheets of Assertion, description or semiotics as a sign) that
prevented him from finishing the system. All ingredients are
present.
I in particular disagree with your:
." However, as I have suggested previously, the three Interpretants
_themselves _seem to be more properly characterized as possible
(Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each
divided into feeling/action/thought.
--
This is the Short arrangement of both trichotomies of interpretants.
It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De
Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each
other according to the mature division of the sciences. From a sign
type perspective Shorts approach makes sense: Each sign has an
element of feeling of action and of thought, but from a processual
approach it is better to apply Ockham’s razor in order to find the
system behind processes of interpretation. Peirce paved the way for
that by his notion of involvement. The logical note books are key,
in combination with Shorts (or Stampers implied) criticism of
Peirce’s focus on scientific progress in developing a theory of
interpretation. (Cf personal, scientific and practical needs that
govern comunication).
Best, Auke van Breemen
-------------------------
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com [4]
Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13235 - datum van uitgifte:
10/18/16
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphanscience.pdf
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://www.avg.com
