Supplement: My looking for a simple generator of the theory is not intended, because I would like it. In fact i think, that simple explanations are dangerous. Autocrats and conspiracy theorists frequently use them. The technical term is complexity reduction. If a complex matter is said to have a simple cause, like a generator formula, this gives me the creeps. So you are more than welcome to refute it. Popper said, a hypothesis is only valid, if it still is falsifiable. Cosmologists saw a symmetry between matter and antimatter, but then, relievingly, discovered a symmetry break. On one hand, we feel better, if we can understand the world better due to a theory, on the other hand, an explaining theory does not only demagify the image of the world, makes it dull and boring, but also may destroy the world, if people follow it. I see some relevance in identifying the categories- in some context- with composition, determination, classification, and thus building a bridge to systems theory. But i hate it, and think, I will do something completely different.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
Jon, List,
we have three classes of context, in which we "either-or-or" divide the interpretant into
-immediate, dynamical, final
-emotional, energetic, logical
-intentional, effectual, communicational.
Maybe these threee classes of context are categorially 1ns, 2ns, 3ns?
And if, I think, there should be a second context for the object too, in which it is divided other than into immediate and dynamical.
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Februar 2024 um 00:07 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
An: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
An: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants
Helmut, List:
HR: But why are there more than three interpretants?
There are not more than three interpretants, just multiple ways of naming them in different contexts. The relevant debates among Peirce scholars have to do with whether "the divisions of interpretant into immediate, dynamic, and final are archetypal, all other divisions being relatively synonymous with these categories" (Liszka as quoted by Atkin, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/). I have come to agree with this "received view."
One alternative that I used to find persuasive is that the emotional/energetic/logical interpretants are orthogonal to the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants (Short), supposedly based on CP 4.536 (1906). However, this passage says only that the actual effect of a sign on an interpreter--its dynamical interpretant--is either a feeling, an exertion, or another sign. As I discuss at length in my Semiotica paper, "Peirce's Evolving Interpretants" (https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHPEI-12), after carefully studying the only texts where Peirce employs the specific terminology of emotional/energetic/logical interpretants (or meanings)--his various manuscript drafts for "Pragmatism" (1907)--it seems clear to me that these are the familiar effects of signs that humans routinely experience as "modifications of consciousness," while the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants are the corresponding effects of signs in general.
Please note, no one is claiming anything about Peirce's intentions. Like other scholars of his thought (including Liszka and Short), I am merely offering a plausible interpretive hypothesis grounded firmly in his own words. As William J. Abraham rightly observes (https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=asburyjournal), "Hermeneutics is not so much the study of what an author intended as the study of what the author achieved. If meaning has an equivalence, it is to be located less in intention and more in achievement. What is achieved may be more or less than what the author intended; happily we can be generous and charitable in our initial judgments and trust that intention and achievement may coincide more often than not."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:42 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
John, List,I vaguely remember, that at some point in the last weeks, somebody quoted somebody, who said, that the theory is more complicated than the reality it is for. I think, it (the theory) is a fractal. A fractal looks very complicated, but it has a very simple generator formula (like Mandelbrot´s appleman).From Peirce we know, that a firstness has one part (itself), a secondness has two, and a thirdness three. For example, this is so with S-O-I, and with primisense, altersense, medisense. But why are there more than three interpretants?I tentatively propose an elaboration of this generator: A secondness has two ways of dividing it into two parts, and a thirdness has three ways of dividing it into three parts. These two respectively three ways are also categorial: the two ways of dividing a secondness are firstnessal and secondnessal, and the three ways of dividing a thirdness into three parts are of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns.Like this, there are three times three interpretants.Or many more, if you keep on divi(di)ng.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.
