Jon Alan, So, we need the intentional and effectual interprretants for the introduction of different minds, that is we need them in order to get semiotics from a terminological exercize into a semiotic study of communication.
best, Auke > Op 30 april 2020 om 2:48 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > Auke, List: > > As I explained at some length, my current view is as follows. > * The intentional interpretant is: > o the dynamical interpretant of a previous sign token with the > same dynamical object, because it is a determination of the mind of the > utterer. > o the final interpretant of this sign token, because it is its > intended effect and thus the effect that it would have under ideal > circumstances. > * The effectual interpretant is the dynamical interpretant, because > it is a determination of the mind of the interpreter; i.e., the sign's actual > effect. > * The communicational interpretant is the immediate interpretant, > because it is a determination of the commens and therefore internal to the > sign. > More to come in the other thread. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:00 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl > mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: > > > > > > Of lately I work with webmail and that puts in another adress. So, > > with delay my response to Jon Alan. > > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht ---------- > Van: Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@upcmail.nl > mailto:a.bree...@upcmail.nl > > Aan: Peirce-L < peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > > Datum: 27 april 2020 om 10:30 > Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation > > Jon Alen, > > You wrote: Thanks for confirming that Peirce identified exactly > three interpretants in the quoted passage. > > -- > > Since interpretants always come in triples, This is no wonder, at > the least we might expect a triple of triples. I object against your > rethorics. Suggesting that the count counts ..... > > I see that you didn't do your substitution in: > > There is the Intentional Interpretant, the Effectual > Interpretant, and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the > Cominterpretant. > > It has to be done before we can proceed. > > It is a sign, it has its immediate and dynamical object. After > the substitution is done we compare the immediate and dynamical objects > suggested by the dictionary meaning of the terms. After that we know whether > only three interpretants, i.e. immediate, dynamical and normal is a feasible > option. I predict it is not. > > Thanks beforehand, > > 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 .
