Helmut, List: HR: A sign (1) cannot determine an interpretant (3).
On the contrary, the sign not only *can*, but *always does* determine the interpretant. One more time ... CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined by the object *relatively to the interpretant*, and *determines the interpretant* *in reference to the object*, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this "sign." (EP 2:410, 1907; bold added) This is an analysis of what happens in an individual *event of semiosis* as prescinded from the real and continuous process. What I call Peirce's "rule of determination"--"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant" (EP 2:481, 1908)--applies specifically within the logical order of the various trichotomies for *sign classification*. His 1903 taxonomy has three of them--for the nature of the sign itself (qualisign/sinsign/legisign), its relation with its object (iconic/indexical/symbolic), and its relation with its interpretant (rheme/dicisign/argument). A qualisign can determine nothing but an icon, which can determine nothing but a rheme; and an argument can be determined by nothing but a symbol, which can be determined by nothing but a legisign. The upshot is that there are only ten classes of signs, not 27 as would be the case if all combinations were possible. That said, Peirce's three universal categories (1ns/2ns/3ns) have much broader application than these "categorical modes," including phaneroscopic analysis of the genuine triadic relation of representing/mediating that yields one sign with two objects and three interpretants. HR: Therefore I suggested, that the interpreter´s mind (3) rather is the determining entity. This is also true in the sense that the interpreter's mind is *another *sign, which co-determines the dynamical interpretant--its actual effect on that individual interpreter--along with the sign being analyzed. Hence, the *same *sign can have *different *dynamical interpretants for different interpreters who have different collateral experience and different habits of interpretation. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:42 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Suppsupplement: And I am not the only one: Vincent Colapietro in a paper > in the internet wrote: > "So, Peirce in his investigation of signs considered signs in themselves, > in their secondness (i.e., in relationship to their object or other), and > in their thirdness (i.e., in relationship to their interpretant or as a > factor in a complex, ongoing process of mediation)" > > So, where i still may be completely wrong, is, that I didn´t call the > relations (sign itself, sign-object, sign-interpretant) categorial, but > sign, object, interpretant. But why not prescind e.g. an interpretant from > its relation with the sign, and then say, that it is thirdness? To say, > that that is forbidden, is a bit too strict, I think. > > Later Colapietro writes, that in this case it is not modes of being, but > modes of knowledge. I find the term "mode" or "modality" too unexact, and, > as I said, have for me replaced it with classification versus composition. > Supplement: And, I did not insist, that "a first, a second, a third" > belong to modal categories, but to categories. Of course I know the > difference between modality and the composition of a sign triad. > Edwina, what you wrote, is exactly what I wrote: That determination, or, > as you wrote, production, cannot go upward in category number: A sign (1) > cannot determin an interpretant (3). Therefore I suggested, that the > interpreter´s mind (3) rather is the determining entity. Now I must add, > that all "entities" of course are prescinded, as they donot really exist > alone, before somebody feels the need of telling me so. > Best, Helmut >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
