Auke, List: JAS: Peirce consistently maintains that there are exactly three interpretants.
AvB: This sentence most certainly is not true. Please provide a citation or quote where Peirce assigns specific names to more than three interpretants in the same passage. Unless you can do that, I stand by my statement. AvB: In the alpha part of semiotics it may seem so, but not in the beta part (see my other mail) where he deals with the interprtetation of the sign. Peirce did not designate "alpha" and "beta" parts of semeitoic, that is your idea. The same is true of your subsequent enumeration of six interpretants, especially since you admit that "Peirce hemself did not connect them directly." In fact, everything that you outline below is in accordance with *your *speculative grammar, not Peirce's, although it is recognizably Peircean in spirit. The same is true of my own approach, which is different from both yours and his. For example, since I understand the immediate/dynamical/final and emotional/energetic/logical divisions to be orthogonal to each other, there is arguably a sense in which I posit *nine *different interpretants. However, I strongly prefer *not *to characterize them that way, just like I reject describing the 1903 taxonomy as having nine different "sign aspects." Instead, I maintain that there are exactly three interpretants--immediate as whatever a type *possibly could* signify to someone with mere sign system acquaintance (*essential *knowledge); dynamical as whatever a token with its tones *actually does* signify to someone with relevant collateral experience/observation (*informed *knowledge); and final as whatever the sign itself *necessarily would* signify to someone in the ultimate opinion (*substantial *knowledge). I go on to add that the immediate interpretant includes a range of *possible *feelings (emotional) for all signs, exertions (energetic) for indexical and symbolic signs, and further signs (logical) for symbolic signs; the dynamical interpretant is an *actual *feeling (emotional), exertion (energetic), or further sign (logical); and the final interpretant is a *habit *of feeling (emotional), action (energetic), or thought (logical). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 6:27 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > Jon, > > You wrote: > > Peirce consistently maintains that there are *exactly three* > interpretants. > > - > > This sentence most certainly is not true. In the alpha part of semiotics > it may seem so, but not in the beta part (see my other mail) where he > deals with the interprtetation of the sign. lets do the count: > > 1. emotional interpretant, the interpretive view on the qualisign aspect > > Heading for a subdivision: energetic interpretant to be subdivided into > > 2. mental interpretant (iconic signaspect) and > > 3. effort interpretant (sinsign aspect) > > heading for a subdivision: logical intepretant to be sub-divided into: > > 4. immediate interpretant (rheme aspect) > > 5. dynamical interpretant (dicent aspect) > > 6. normal interpretant (the argument aspects in which all lower aspects > are involved). > > Peirce hemself did not connect them directly. Probably because as a > logicean with an eye on the sheet of assertion he did not take the > apprehension of the sign as an object into account. > > Notice that the index, the symbol and the legisign aspect are still > missing. Those emerge in the gamma part, that deals with the interaction of > two signs. What follows has to be read as an analytical reconstruction in > fragments only. > > Suppose our interaction as a communication between two semiotic sheets A > and B, and that our conversation by mail is the intersection of our sheets. > Lets further accept that Shannon covers the transmission of the sign as an > object (i.e. qualisign, sinsign and icon aspect of our words). Lets take > the word 'god'. On the pc the legisign is covered by the asci value of the > signs to be transmitted and the interoperability in their value > interpretation on both our computers. > > For *our* reading the screen, the legisign aspect is not covered. Each of > the sheets develops out of its inscripton (reading the screen) the > emotional, mental and physical interpretants for further processing as a > legisign. It is by being inscribed in our respective sheets, that we are > able to develop the import of the sign for our respective universes of > discourse. The indexical sign aspect covers this, but we have to > distinguish index A from index B, for instance by tincture as in the gamma > part of EG. The legisign aspect is the habit of interpretation that is > pertinent to our respective sheets if we technically read the sign. I don't > expect much difference here between A and B, both will notice a difference > in capitalization in different occurences, but that is all that has to be > covered by the legisign. With the symbol things differ. A person > consistently writing 'God' may be expected to have other concepts evoked > than a person consistently writing 'god'. If we want to know the > difference, we have to look at the dynamical interpretant aspects developed > out of the rhematic possibilities the sign offers for A and for those in B. > If the dynamical interpretants agree to sufficient degree they will be the > same, i.e. we evolved the same symbol aspect of the sign 'god'. But how > can we know? We need the argument, on each sheet, that connects all > involved aspects to produce a response. The response being a sign on the > intersection of sheet A and B, which is the screen. The alpha part of > semiotics may be indifferent to the differences between sheets, it > abstracts. But in gamma we need to make sure to keep count of the sheets to > which the signs are connected. Your representational interpretant of 'God' > as a symbol probably differs from mine in a lot of respects, leading to > differences in response. They add up in different ways on the sheets A and > B. And habit change may occur on both. Not neccesarilly in any intended > direction. By being indexically commected with the respective sheets, the > incriptions may becomme relevant for other exchanges of sheet A and B in > other processes with C, etc., by becomming relevant for the > representational interpretant of that other proces's goal. > > Best, > > Auke >
----------------------------- 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 .
