Jon Alen, I don't fight your: Moreover, my point continues to be that it is not necessary for something to be actually perceived in order to qualify as a sign.
I saw those quotes, but I know the scope of the pragmatism article which is the meaning of intellectual concepts and a quasi mind is assumed. In a quasi mind we may abstract from the apprehension of the sign as an object. At p. 410 in EP I read: "In point of fact, we do find that the immediate object and emotional interpretant correspond, both being apprehensions, or are "subjective"; both, too, appertain to all signs without exeption."(emphasis AvB). It is the difference between a potential sign and a sign in actu. The example in the footnote on p. 413 (Herbert Peirce extinguishing a dress on fire and telling afterwards that he often in his imagination went through what ought to be done in such cases after he heard of such a thing happened to ms Longfellow) works with maybe's as a play in the imagination. A sign must be able to arouse a feeling (emotional interpretant). in oder to qualify as a sign. That is a requisite for your (1). Leaving this context out or just implied hides an important aspect of Peirce's semiotics. JAS: It is sufficient that (1) it may determine a dynamical interpretant under various circumstances by virtue of having animmediate interpretant, and (2) it would determine a dynamical interpretant under ideal circumstances by virtue of having a final interpretant. Best, Auke > Op 15 juni 2020 om 2:30 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > Auke, List: > > That is my concise summary of my understanding of Peirce's opinion as > expressed in his writings. I provided some supporting quotes in this same > thread a few days ago, as follows (Robert, please forgive the repetition). > > > > > RM: A sign is always a real thing that represents > because to be sign it must be perceived > > > > > > > > > JAS: This assertion also directly contradicts Peirce's > plain statement that "If a sign has no interpreter, its interpretant is a > 'would be,' i.e., is what it would determine in the interpreter if there were > one" (EP 2:409, 1907). Something need not be perceived in order to qualify > as a sign, as long as it is capable of determining a dynamical interpretant > by virtue of having an immediate interpretant, "its peculiar Interpretability > before it gets any Interpreter" (SS 111, 1909), and a final interpretant, > "the effect the Sign would produce upon any mind upon which circumstances > should permit it to work out its full effect" (SS 110, 1909). > > > > > > In fact, several years earlier Peirce already seems to recognize that an > actual interpretant is not necessary, instead repeatedly calling it merely > "possible." > > > > > CSP: A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic > relation, the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible > Third Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation the > possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same > triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. (CP > , EP 2:290, 1903, bold added) > > > > > > > Later he explicitly affirms that "there must be a sign without an utterer > and a sign without an interpreter" (EP 2:404, 1907). Kinds of "signs without > utterers" include "symptoms of disease, signs of the weather, groups of > experiences serving as premisses, etc." "Signs without interpreters" include > pictures woven by a Jacquard loom that catch fire and are "consumed before > anyone can see them," "conditions and results" of experiments with model > boats that are "automatically recorded" but "nobody takes the trouble to > study," and "the books of a bank" when a balance sheet is not drawn up from > them. An example of my own is that ripples on the surface of a remote lake > at night are a sign of the direction of the wind, despite there being no one > there to observe them. > > Consequently, "neither an utterer, nor even, perhaps, an interpreter is > essential to a sign" (ibid). Peirce proceeds to "inquire whether there be > not some ingredient of the utterer and some ingredient of the interpreter > which not only are so essential, but are even more characteristic of signs > than the utterer and the interpreter themselves." He takes several pages to > identify the essential ingredient of the utterer as the object (EP 2:404-409) > and just two paragraphs to identify the essential ingredient of the > interpreter as the interpretant (EP 2:409-410). Every sign has a > conditionally necessary (final) interpretant, and thus a possible (immediate) > interpretant, even if it never has an actual (dynamical) interpretant because > there does not happen to be an interpreter present to be determined by it. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 3:59 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@upcmail.nl > mailto:a.bree...@upcmail.nl > wrote: > > > > > > Jon Alen, > > > > Is this your opinion or Peirce's? > > > > > > > Moreover, my point continues to be that it is > > not necessary for something to be actually perceived in order to qualify > > as a sign. It is sufficient that (1) it may determine a dynamical > > interpretant under various circumstances by virtue of having an immediate > > interpretant, and (2) it would determine a dynamical interpretant under > > ideal circumstances by virtue of having a final interpretant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am particular interested in where to find the source. > > > > 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe > PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
