Gary F. Much better detailed and disentangled from the dispute going on about the role of a 'reality' test in doing semiotics. I think we are in agreement.
Auke > Op 30 april 2020 om 16:02 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca: > > > I think I’m in agreement with what Auke says here, but would put it a > little differently. My way of looking at this kind of problem in speculative > grammar is this: > > > > The triadicity of semiosic relations determines that in many (if not all) > semiotic contexts, there will be exactly three interpretants, i.e. a > trichotomy of them into a 1st, 2nd and 3rd categorially. Communication is one > context, deductive reasoning is another, etc. These sets of three have a > “family resemblance” to one another, but that doesn't guarantee that any one > set can be exactly mapped onto another. > > > > I think the same goes for the two objects. In an earlier post i proposed > that in an action-perception cycle such as one taking place in an animal with > a complex (hierarchical) visual system, the Dynamic Object can be mapped onto > the bottom-up stream of neural activity, while the Immediate Object can be > mapped onto the top-down stream. But this only applies to a semiosic process > going on in a single brain; there is no guarantee that it will match up > exactly with the mapping we use in another semiotic context, such as > communication between people. > > > > Gary f. > > > > From: a.bree...@chello.nl <a.bree...@chello.nl> > Sent: 30-Apr-20 06:46 > To: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation > > > > 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 mailto: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 > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
