Gary R, List,
I refer to the definition of the representamen (the number 76 of
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM) resituated in
its original broader context on page 34 of MS 1345:
MS1345_034
*",entation[1] <#_ftn1> ; **and an object which forms one of such a triad
and has for his characteristics is called a Representamen.*
*Art.8 Division 7. A Quale can, as such, be considered from only one point
of view.*
* A Reagent can be considered from two formal points of view,
namely, as affected by the reaction, and so as Patient, and as affecting
the complementary factor, and so as Agent.*
'A Representamen can be considered from three formal points of
view, namely, first as the substance of the representation, or the *Vehicle*
o*f* the *Meaning,* which is common to the three representamens of the
triad, second as the quasi agent in the representation, conformity to
which its *Truth,* that is, as the *Natural Object, *and third, as the
quasi-patient in the representation, or that whether modification makes it
*Intelligence*, and this may be called the *Interpretant*. Thus, in looking
at a map, the map itself is the *Vehicle*, the country represented in
the *Natural
Object*, and the idea excited in the mind is the *Interpretant.'
*(partie reproduite
en def 76)
*Furthermore, every representamen may be considered as a reagent, its
intellectual characteristic neglected; and both representamen and reagent
may be considered as quales, their relative character being neglected. This
we do, for example, when we say that the word man has three letters.*"
>From this definition, it follows that the "intentional interpretant" ("here
is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of
the utterer", EP2 478 ) not being observable, cannot be a Natural Object.
It can only give place to endless inquiries, except perhaps that science
evolving, it allows to read in the brain of the utterer objective
characters of the determination of this mind.
Indeed,
*"The point to remember is, that whatever we say of ideas as they are in
consciousness is said of something unknowable in its immediacy. The only
thought that is really present to us is a thought we can neither think
about nor talk about. "Of thine eye I am eyebeam," says the Sphinx. We have
no reason to deny the dicta of introspection, but we have to remember that
they are all results of association, are all theoretical, bits of
instinctive psychology. We accept them, but not as literally true; only as
expressive of the impression which has naturally been made upon our
understanding. *"( CP 7.425)[emphasize mine}
If this is the case for introspection, it is, a fortiori, the case for
extrospection!
A famous example is provided by the misadventure of Ferdinand de Saussure
"I
*n a letter dated July 14, 1906, Ferdinand de Saussure, after several
months of research devoted to the study of the Saturnian, this enigmatic
verse which does not obey any known scheme of classical metrics and of
which he believes he has finally succeeded in piercing the mystery, writes
in a state of excitement:'..I can announce to you that I now hold the
victory on all the line. I have spent two months interrogating the monster,
and groping against it, but for the last three days I have been using only
heavy artillery [...] it is through alliteration that I have managed to
hold the key to the Saturnian, which is more complicated than we imagined.
The whole phenomenon of alliteration [...] that we noticed in Saturnian, is
only an insignificant part of a more general phenomenon, or rather
absolutely total. The totality of the syllables of each Saturnian verse
obeys a law of alliteration, from the first syllable to the last; and
without a single consonant [...] a single vowel [...] a single quantity of
vowel, is scrupulously taken into account. The result is so surprising that
one is inclined to wonder above all how the authors of these verses [...]
could have had the time to indulge in such a headache: for it is a real
Chinese game...'*
* The euphoria of the discovery will be followed by uncertainty,
discouragement and even - we can guess it by reading the correspondence of
the master with his disciple and confidant Antoine Meillet - a form of
weariness which, in spite of the state of progress of his investigation
with, in total, a hundred of handwritten notebooks devoted to the subject,
will make him give up the publication of his research, definitively
abandoned in 1909"*
This is an example of impossible research because no scientific criteria
can be applied to it, notably the simple verification that its object
exists as a natural object. Saussure's Chinese game was nothing more than
an intellectual construction that did not resist the evaluation of his
peers, and for good reason, no one could hold the rules of this game.
Consequently, it seems to me that those "*on and off this List"* who think
that the goal "*in the case of a written text is always to correctly
discern the author's (intentional interpreter's) intended meaning as
expressed in the tex*t" (Gary R), are in fact proposing to us that we play
a Chinese fantasmatic game, the rules of which they have long been trying
to establish.
Regards,
Robert Marty
------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> Word cut (probably the word Representation). The previous
page is not included in MS 1345.
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
Le dim. 24 oct. 2021 à 00:20, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> List,
>
> To incorrectly, in my opinion, define 'representamen' as 'the mediative
> node' -- for example, as the 'function' that transforms 'input' into
> 'output' -- effectively assigns the role of mediating between the object
> and interpretant to the* interpreter* rather than to the *sign*.
>
> This, in turn, leads to the error of denying that there is any such thing
> as an objectively correct (or objectively incorrect) reading of a text. In
> terms Gary Fuhrman recently used, this mistaken view has the *internal
> context **of *the interpreter *govern over* the *external context* that
> is *shared* with the utterer.
>
> If we abandon this ideal of objectivity -- which, of course, can never be
> perfectly or exactly realized -- we are left with nothing that serves as a
> *standard* for assessing actual interpretations.
>
> In the view of some on this List and off, this goal in the case of a
> written text is always properly discerning *the* *author's intended
> meaning* (intentional interpretant) as expressed in the text (immediate
> interpretant). For anyone who makes the interpreter the mediator, rather
> than the sign being that, there are only various individual readings, none
> of which is more or less valid than any other.
>
> Such a version of semiotics is not a *normative *science at all as It
> provides no basis for evaluating any particular reading as a *better*
> interpretation
> of a text, or even a *mis*interpretation of the text. And who would
> honestly deny that misinterpretations of texts do indeed occur? And who
> would seriously argue that any and every interpretation is as good as any
> other?
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
>
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the
> message and nothing in the body. More at
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
