BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}With regard to this particular sentence of JAS:
"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. "
In addition to my post concerning my interpretation that the sign is
irreducibly triadic, and includes an interpretant even without an
'interpreter' - [unless one assigns that function of interpreter to
the entity, such as the human body's immune system is the interpreter
of the virus [object] entering it - and the interpretant is the
effects of that intrusioin [rash, fever]…..In this case, the
interpreter is equivalent to the mediative representamen/sign.
But- my question concerns the comment by JAS above - and I question
whether every sign has, necessarily, a final interpretant. I refer to
Peirce's comment that "not all signs have logical interpretants, but
only intellectual concepts and the like; and these are all either
general or intimately connected with generals, as it seems to me.
This shows that the species of future tense of the logical
interpretant is that of the conditional mood, the 'would-be'" EP p
410.
My point is that, as Peirce points out, not every sign has a final
interpretant, conditional or not. Only intellectual concepts. So -
that measles, that wind-on-the-water, that weathercock - which are
all functioning as triads - don't have final interpretants.
As for the concept that the triad has an immediate/emotional
interpretant but not necessarily an actual/dynamic interpretant - I'd
agree with that. But not for the reason outlined by JAS, which
requires that 'interpreter present to be determined by it'. I'd say
that the interpreter IS present. In the case of measles, the
interpreter is the human body's immune system; in the case of the
weathercock, it's the metal/wooden stand; in the case of the water
ripples, it's the water.
Now - there may not be an active, dynamic interpretant resulting
from the stimulus from the Dynamic Object. There might instead be an
interpretant which is below the 'critical threshold' for an
actuality, a dynamic interpretant to emerge. So, as Auke points out,
the result would only be an emotional interpretant. For example, the
virus would infect the body but would be 'asymptomatic'. If the
immune system broke down, then, the critical threshold would be
lowered and symptoms would appear. The wind would affect the
weathercock but not enough to move it. And so on.
Edwina
On Sun 14/06/20 8:30 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 3:59 AM Auke van Breemen <
a.bree...@upcmail.nl [3]> 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'a.bree...@upcmail.nl\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
