Jon Alan, List, JAS: How many different interpretants does Peirce identify in the passage quoted below (EP 2:478, 1906)?
There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take place. This mind may be called the commens. It consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfill its function. -- LETS set up a dictionary: Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the utterer the Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the interpreter the Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should take place AND shorten the quote accordingly: There is the Intentional Interpretant, the Effectual Interpretant, and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant. NOW, since there are exactly and only three interpretants in your view (immediate, dynamical and final/normal), which terms would you substitute at the different occurences? Best, Auke > Op 26 april 2020 om 2:54 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > Auke, List: > > How many different interpretants does Peirce identify in the passage > quoted below (EP 2:478, 1906)? Does he mention any additional interpretants > in that particular letter? Are there any manuscripts whatsoever where Peirce > explicitly identifies more than three interpretants in the same analysis? If > not, why conclude that there are more than three, just because he uses > different names in different lists of exactly three? How is this more > justified than viewing Peirce as experimenting over time with different names > for the same three interpretants? Note that these are questions, not > assertions; I am inviting persuasion that Auke's approach is more warranted > than mine. On the other hand, all the recent List discussions were initially > prompted by Robert Marty's paper introducing the podium diagram, which (based > on the three categories) implies that one sign must have exactly two objects > and exactly three interpretants. Where does such an analysis supposedly go > wrong? > > Besides, limiting the interpretants to exactly three is by no means a > novel proposal. As long ago as 1993, Jorgen Dines Johansen stated in his > book, Dialogic Semiosis: An Essay on Signs and Meaning, "The most important > divisions of the interpretant are the immediate, the dynamical, and the > final" (p. 173). He then aligned some of the alternative names > accordingly--essential and intended with immediate; communicational, > rational, and ultimate logical with final. Five years later, the editors of > Volume 2 of The Essential Peirce similarly associated intentional, > impressional, and initial with immediate; effectual, factual, middle, and > dynamic with dynamical; and communicational, normal, habitual, and eventual > with final (p. 555 n. 2). I disagree with a couple of these specific > assignments, but the point is that it is quite common in the secondary > literature to understand Peirce as having identified exactly three > interpretants, while varying considerably in what he ca! lled them. > > Again, "the gamma part of semiotics" is an aspect of Auke's speculative > grammar, not Peirce's own; just as the immediate object/interpretant > pertaining to a type, the dynamical object/interpretant pertaining to a > token, and the final interpretant pertaining to the sign itself are aspects > of my speculative grammar, not Peirce's own. Nevertheless, our different > speculative grammars are both recognizably Peircean. As with Robert, I > sincerely appreciate Auke's scholarship--especially, as he mentions below, > our mutual dedication to studying Peirce's unpublished texts--even though we > have reached some different conclusions when it comes to the details. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 8:02 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl > mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > Gary f., list, > > > > I understand to have hit on a great devide between groups of > > listers. As far as JAS is concerned, I already indicated my objections, and > > I already indicated that I value it highly that he took the trouble to > > seriously read the unpublished pages. I seldom meet a person that, as I > > did, took the trouble. > > > > I suggested already to look at this from a semiotical point of view: > > > > Well, this is nice meat for a semioticean. How is such a > > misunderstanding possible? > > > > -- > > > > Curiously enough this example fits in nicely with the discussion > > about the total number of interpretants Peirce distinguished. > > > > 1906|Letters to Lady Welby|EP 2:478 > > > > There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of > > the mind of the utterer; the Effectual Interpretant, which is a > > determination of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational > > Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that > > mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have to be fused in > > order that any communication should take place. This mind may be called the > > commens. It consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between > > utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question > > should fulfill its function. > > > > --- > > > > Here we are in, what I call, the gamma part of semiotics. Demanding > > its own identification of differences between interpretants. This cannot > > simply be reduced to: immediate, normal and final interpretant. > > > > 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 . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
