Gary F., List: As I have acknowledged previously, Peirce evidently changed his mind about what a Sign *signifies*.
In 1904, "every sign sufficiently complete *signifies characters*, or qualities"--i.e., "Aristotelian *Form*"--such that "The totality of the predicates of a sign, and also the totality of the characters it signifies" constitute its logical depth, *Inhalt*, or connotation (EP 2:304-305). However, in 1909, "its *Interpretant *is the *Signification *of the concept, its *Inhalt*, its 'connotation' (to use a bad term)" (EP 2:497). Now I see that already in 1906, "indefiniteness as to what is the Object of the Sign, and indefiniteness as to its Interpretant" refer respectively to "indefiniteness in Breadth and in Depth" (CP 4.543). Again, my own position is what I take to be Peirce's earlier view--logical breadth (what a Sign denotes) and logical depth (what a Sign signifies) correspond to different aspects of the Object (Dynamic and Immediate), and only information as their product corresponds to the Interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:20 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Jon, just one question here: What’s the change of mind that you are > referring to when you say “Peirce's initial parallelism here aligns the > Object of a Sign with its Breadth, and its Interpretant with its Depth; so > he evidently had changed his mind about the latter already by 1906”? Change > from what? > > > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
