Any talk of signs would benefit from the use of examples. Otherwise, you are constructing hypotheticals with no possibility of arriving at an expressive or actionable result. There's a big world out there. Semiosis has to do with all, everything, as I understand it.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:50 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > OK, I think I can follow your reasoning, though I don’t find it > persuasive. It implies that there is no such thing as an *intended > interpretant* of any given sign, if that means an interpretant intended > by the utterer. This makes me wonder what Peirce could possibly be > referring to as “the Influence the Sign is *intended* to exert" (R > 339:424[285r]” (quoted in your earlier message), if neither Seme nor Pheme > nor Delome can have an intended interpretant. > > Are you assuming (or are you convinced) that the > *Intentional/Effectual/Communicational > *trichotomy of interpretants differs *in name only* from the > *Immediate/Dynamical/Final > *trichotomy? Are there really only three interpretants, not six or more? > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 20-Mar-18 16:33 > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants > > > > Garys, List: > > > > GR: When you say that the Dynamic Object determines the Sign, what part > does the Immediate Object play in that determination? I am for now assuming > that it is the Form which the Sign will represent. Can one say that the > Dynamic Object determines the Immediate Object which determines the Sign? > That, at least, has been my understanding. > > > > Peirce consistently held that the Object determines the Sign, which > determines the Interpretant. When he expanded his analysis to two Objects > (and three Interpretants), he indeed indicated that the Dynamic Object > determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign; but keep in > mind that the Immediate Object is *internal *to the Sign. My current > proposal is that the Dynamic Object is the Matter that the Sign denotes, > while the Immediate Object is the Form that the Sign signifies--as I have > put it previously, a partial combination of attributes of the Dynamic > Object that render it recognizable to an interpreting Quasi-mind with the > appropriate Collateral Experience. Does that answer your questions? > > > > GF: Jon, one question re your statement: “… he had defined the > Intentional Interpretant as "a determination of the mind of the utterer" > (SS 196, EP 2:478). Apparently he realized that, as such, it obviously > *cannot > *be an Interpretant of the Sign that the utterer is *currently *uttering > …” Why not? > > > > Because any Interpretant is always a determination of the Quasi-mind that > *interprets > *a given Sign, never the Quasi-mind that *utters *it--even when these are > temporally successive versions of the *same *Quasi-mind. Again, the > essential ingredient of the utterer is the Object, while the essential > ingredient of the interpreter is the Interpretant; and in Peirce's words ... > > > > CSP: In its relation to the Object, the Sign is *passive*; that is to > say, its correspondence to the Object is brought about by an effect upon > the Sign, the Object remaining unaffected. On the other hand, in its > relation to the Interpretant the Sign is *active*, determining the > Interpretant without being itself thereby affected. (EP 2:544n22; 1906) > > > > A Sign cannot affect its utterer, since it cannot affect its Object; but > it can and does affect its interpreter, precisely by determining its > Interpretant *in that Quasi-mind*. > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jon, list, > > > > Thanks for this very helpful analysis of the three interpretants of > Peirce's late semeiotic. My first impression is, from what I can grasp of > it, that it seems correct and complete, a succinct and subtle analysis. But > I'll want to study it further as there are some points which are still a > bit unclear to me, for example: > > > > JA: The essential ingredient of the utterer is the Dynamic Object, which > determines the Sign; that of the interpreter is the Dynamic Interpretant, > which the Sign determines; and that of the Commens is the Sign itself, > which welds the utterer and interpreter into one Quasi-mind (cf. CP > 4.551). > > > > When you say that the Dynamic Object determines the Sign, what part does > the Immediate Object play in that determination? I am for now assuming that > it is the Form which the Sign *will *represent. Can one say that the > Dynamic Object determines the Immediate Object which determines the Sign? > That, at least, has been my understanding. > > > > In any event, your analysis should allow semioticians interested in this > aspect of Peirce's late semiotic to get a handle on it sufficient to > springboard into further analysis. This is, of course, not to suggest that > it may not need some correction (or at least tweaking), but for me for now > it makes more sense of the three interpretants than anything else I've read > in years. And, again, that it does it succinctly is in my mind a definite > virtue (esp. for the purposes of study). > > > > Best, > > > > Gary > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jon, one question re your statement: “… he had defined the Intentional > Interpretant as "a determination of the mind of the utterer" (SS 196, EP > 2:478). Apparently he realized that, as such, it obviously *cannot* be > an Interpretant of the Sign that the utterer is *currently* uttering …” > > Why not? > > Gary f. > > } We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us. [Tagore] { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
