If a sign is amorphous as I feel most are, in other words without a definite and clear and discernable objective, then it is hit or miss whether a clear connection or influence can be discerned. It seems to me that mystery lies at the heart of the semiotic process because of the nature of our minds. We guess at words and go from there but the words may have no real connection to whatever the sign may have been. In this sense I have always assumed that there was a process in firstness by which signs morphed into words or explicit images or formulae and became the basis for consideration via a triadic encounter with index and then symbol.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote: > Francesco, Jon S., Robert, List, > > > The list Robert has compiled contains an entry that bears on the question > of how we might understand the character of the immediate object. The entry > the 40th in the list, and it is from *MS 318, Pragmatism (1907).* > > > I am now prepared to risk an attempt at defining a sign, --since in > scientific inquiry, as in other enterprises, the maxim holds: nothing > hazard, nothing gain. I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever > mode of being, which mediates between an object and an interpretant; since > it is both determined by the object relatively to the interpretant, and > determining the interpretant in reference to the object, in such wise as to > cause the interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation > of this "sign". > > > The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the > sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign. Moreover, > the sign being defined in terms of these correlative correlates, it is > confidently to be expected that object and interpretant should precisely > correspond, each to the other. In point of fact, we do find that the > immediate object and emotional interpretant correspond, both being > apprehensions, or are "subjective"; both, too, pertain to all signs without > exception. The real object and energetic interpretant also correspond, both > being real facts or things. But to our surprise, we find that the logical > interpretant does not correspond with any kind of object. This defect of > correspondence between object and interpretant must be rooted in the > essential difference there is between the nature of an object and that of > an interpretant; which difference is that former antecedes while the latter > succeeds. The logical interpretant must, therefore, be in a relatively > future tense. > > The relevant passage is the one where he says of the immediate object and > the emotional interpretant that "both, too, pertain to all signs without > exception." This seems to suggest that any sign that involves the > apprehension of an object does so in virtue of its having a relation to > an immediate object. While some external signs may not, at some point in > time, be apprehended by an interpreter, all are capable of being so > apprehended. This suggests that all signs have an immediate object--at > least as a possible sort of thing--even if the object is not actually > apprehended at some given time. When the sign of any type is interpreted *in > **actu*, it will come to be apprehended in this way--and the immediate > object appears to be essential for the interpretation of every sign. > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 11:13:58 AM > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terminology of Peirce's final sign > classification > > Robert, List: > > How can our understanding of the different correlates be "superfluous" to > the classification of Signs accordingly? For one thing, the > internal/external distinction helps explain why there are additional > trichotomies for the (external) relations between the Sign and the Dynamic > Object/Interpretant, but not the (internal) relations between the Sign and > the Immediate Object/Interpretant. Again, why did Peirce divide Signs > according to the Mode of *Presentation *of the *internal *correlates vs. > the Mode of *Being * of the *external* correlates, if he did not consider > *both > *of these distinctions to be noteworthy and perhaps connected? > > I have come across your "76 Definitions" in the past, but have not > reviewed it recently. I agree that many of the editorial choices for CP > were unfortunate, and wish that the Peirce Edition Project had made much > better progress to date at publishing the Writings in chronological order. > As for your animation, it reflects the notion of infinite semiosis, > although it only proceeds forward rather than also reaching backward. My > understanding of Peirce's late view is that he came to recognize the > *termination > *of semiosis upon the production of a *feeling *or *effort *as the > Dynamic Interpretant, rather than another Sign, or a *habit *or > *habit-change* as the ultimate Logical Interpretant. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, <marty.rob...@neuf.fr> wrote: > >> >> Would you agree that these internal vs. external distinctions (which I >> readily admit) are superfluous with regard to the classification of signs? >> It is a necessary condition to continue the debate, it seems to me ... >> In addition, do you know my thesaurus >> >> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM ? >> <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM> >> >> Having made this work (which seemed to me absolutely necessary to avoid >> the bias of the arbitrary choices made by the editors of the CP , with in >> addition an anarchic chronological dispersion of the items) I am engaged me >> in a kind of linear regression by the method of the least squares, a good >> metaphor for me to describe one "method of the least gaps with the thinking >> of the master". I made an animated gif which expresses my choices >> globally ... it dynamically represents semiosis with successive triads ad >> infinitum ; it can be complicated by introducing the 2 objects and the 3 >> interpretants : >> >> http://semiotiquedure.online/images/sch038.gif >> >> >> >> *do you think it is compatible with your own choices? Best Regards, >> Robert Marty* >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
