Michael - Why not instead provide us with a brief discussion of your discussion?
Edwina > On Feb 3, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Michael Shapiro <poo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > To all participants in this discussion of interpretants I would like to > recommend that they take a look at my discussion of markedness in one or more > of my books, the latest being The Logic of Lasnguage (New York: Springer, > 2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship between > sign and object. > -----Original Message----- > From: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> > Sent: Feb 3, 2024 7:46 AM > To: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> > Cc: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net <mailto:s...@bestweb.net>>, Peirce List > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>, CG > <c...@lists.iccs-conference.org <mailto:c...@lists.iccs-conference.org>> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants > > > Again, if I might continue with the importance of the hexadic semiosic > process, in that it enables complex adaptation…within interaction > > That is - the reality of two Object relations, the Dynamic and the Immediate > acknowledges that not all off the input data from the external interaction > will be accepted by the capacity of the sign -vehicle and its representamen. > And indeed, some of this data might be changed /affected by other input > happening at the same time. > > Then - the three Interpretants are vital. > > The first one, the Immediate, confines the reaction to the internal > experience of the individual. It goes no further. I think this is important - > if we think of a disease - it would confine the infection to one individual. > If we think of another situation - it would confine the sensation of the > experience to one individual [ rather than mob hysteria]. > > The next one, the Dynamic, is important - since it produces an external > response to the input data and brings in local ‘observers’, so to speak, who > treat this external Interfpretant as a Sign in itself. //something that they > might react to. . > > The last one, the Final - moves the response to a general, common one. > > An example would be a sound heard by an individual in a group of monkeys. > This one individual might only feel a subjective internal response [Immediae > Interpretant] and other than that - continue gathering fruit]. But - it might > instead, produce an external result [ the monkey would scream]. This would > act as its own triadic Sign to the other monkeys….who would recognize it as > an Alarm. Over time - this particular sound by the monkey is understood, > always, as an Alarm. > > That is - I think the function of the three Interpretants, nuanced as they > are, is vital. > > Edwina > > On Feb 2, 2024, at 7:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca > <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: > > John, list > > 1] I don’t know what you mean by ‘His Commentary’…in your sentence > But in his important analyses of those subjects, I have not seen him show how > his theory of interpretants aided him in the discovery and formulation of his > commentary. > > 2] And I don’t know what you mean by ’that insight’ in your sentence: > Can you (or any other reader of P-List) find any important (or just useful) > example of an insight in which Peirce's theory of interpretants helped > discover that insight? > > 3] I briefly outlined why I think that the the hexadic semosic process is > capable of generative development of matter and mind. That is, > > 3-a] the reality of two object relations, with one, the DO, being input from > an external source, and the other, the IO, being the input that the > sign-vehicle is equipped to accept as input [ a dog can smell better than a > human; an owl can see better; a…etc etc]… > > Along with the reality that input from multiple DOs might be happening at the > same time.. > > 3-b; the reality that the mediative process, theRepresentamen GROWS in its > mediative capacity by learning, by exposure, by..even, chance [ see Peirce’s > three methods of evolution: tychasm, anancasm, agapasm] > > 3c- the reality of THREE Interpretant relations - > > with one being strictly a local, subjective, individual result..[the II] - an > action that generates a potentiality for change; > > and the more complex next one [DI] being individual but external to the > individual, which moves the result of the original DO, IO input it into an > actual existentially…that affects OTHER sign-vehicles > > ….and the next one [FI] being the communal non-local non-individual > generality where new laws are developed. > > That is - my view is that this whole process enables adaptive complexity to > develop. An example could be where a bird tries to eat a seed, which has a > hard shell [DO]; and what little it can extract from this shell [ IO] …is > processed by its digestive system [Representamen in a mode of 3ns, 2ns and > 1ns] , which, possibly lacking in nutrients from this small amount produces > only a small nutrition result, [II] , but this small result forces the > bird’s body to develop a stronger digestion [to digest shells[ and even, > these chemicals act to strengthen its beak…[DI]..and this reaction becomes > common among the local bird population [FI]. > > My point is that both the number of interactions that take place - and that > includes all three interpretant which I think are vital - , along with the > capacities of the three categorical modes - are basic to complex adaptive > systems. > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2024, at 5:22 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net > <mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> wrote: > > Edwina, > > I strongly agree with you that Peirce's analyses of those subjects are > extremely valuable. I also believe that his analyses are at the forefront of > 21st C cognitive science in those areas. That is a conclusion of my recent > article, of which I recently sent the completed Section 7 to these lists. > > But in his important analyses of those subjects, I have not seen him show how > his theory of interpretants aided him in the discovery and formulation of his > commentary. > > Can you (or any other reader of P-List) find any important (or just useful) > example of an insight in which Peirce's theory of interpretants helped > discover that insight? > > John > > > From: "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com > <mailto:edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>> > Sent: 2/2/24 5:01 PM > To: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net <mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> > Cc: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>, > CG <c...@lists.iccs-conference.org <mailto:c...@lists.iccs-conference.org>> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants > > John, list > > I wouldn’t say that the Interpretants are a muddled uselessness.I think they > play a vital role. I think, however, that attempting to find exact and > singular meanings of terms is not very functional. > > I use Peirce primarily for analysis of both biological and societal systems - > > I find him extremely perceptive, above all, with his analysis of the > Categories- The reality of ‘modes of Being’ is extremely difficult to find > in other scientific or philosophical outlines - ie - Most analyses of > ‘matter’ view it as almost inert ‘stuff’ and focuses more on mechanical > interactions or puzzles over quantum ‘weirdness’. But - to outline concepts > of ‘feeling’ [ and even protoplasm feels]; the concept of reaction - and - > the concept of habit formation - all three categories found as universal - I > personally find this very functional in explaining both biological systems > and societal systems. . > > Then - I find his focus on the multiple nodal sites of the semiotic process > to be useful; and I view semiotic processes as operative in all of matter, > both physical and biological and in societal systems. That is, I full yagree > with Peirce’s view that the whole universe is composed of signs [plural]; and > indeed, is a vast semiosic process. > > So- I find the hexadic semiosic process very useful: that is, the > interactional information functionality of an external relation of the sign > vehicle to its environment [ which relation becomes the Dynamic Object]. And > then, the internal nature of the dats from this DO - which is commonly quite > different from the ‘full nature’ of the DO - ie, the Immediate Object. Then, > the Representamen as mediation. Accepting the input data and analyzing it. > > And then- the three Interpretants - with the Internal Interpretant as the > individual’s local subjective reaction; the external - or Dynamic > Interpretent as the Individual’s more objective reaction…and finally - the > acknowledgment by Peirce that there could be a commonly developed > interpretation of these stimuli. That is - the role of the individual within > the community. > > And of course, all of these ’nodes’ can also function within the three > categories, which increases the complexity of the semiosic function. > > - I DO see a very vital role for the Interpretants. ..in enabling deviation > from the data of the Dynamic Object - and enabling adaptation of the sign > vehicle and the development of new Habits [held within the representamen of > the sign-vehicle. ]. That is - the fact that there are three interepetants, > moving from the immediate local perception of the input data , to an external > objective result [ does the effect of the input data as expressed...have any > functional result? ..and then..on to the larger collective result - does this > function to CHANGE THE HABITS OF THE REPRESENTAMEN? > > Edwina > > On Feb 2, 2024, at 4:30 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > Edwina, Jon AS, Jon A, Helmut, List, > > Peirce made immense contributions to 21st century research in all the > branches of cognitive science. But he never found any informative or useful > applications of his writings on interpretants. He was struggling with the > ideas up to the end. > > Peirce scholars never built any extensions to his writings on interpretants > because Peirce himself was unable to produce a useful system. He couldn't > convince anybody, not even himself. See the end of this note for the > citation and quotations from the Stanford article. Conclusion: Neither > Peirce nor anybody else ever developed the theory to make useful predictions > about anything. > > In short, I wouldn't say that Peirce's writings on interpretants are wrong -- > just that they are so vague that nobody has been able to use them to do or > say anything useful. > > Recommendation: Let his writings on interpretants rest in peace (RIP), and > focus on the great body of work that is at the forefront of the latest > developments in cognitive science. > > John > > > From: "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > > John, list > > Regardless of the terminology, which I acknowledge obscures the analysis, I > think that one can conclude that Peirce’s view is that there are three > Interpretants. One is Individual Internal; the next is Individual External, > and the last one is Collective External. And- each of these three ’nodes’ > can be in any one of the three modal categories. > > That’s how I see it. > > Edwina > > On Jan 31, 2024, at 6:37 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > I rarely comment on discussions of interpretants, because nobody, not even > Peirce, had a complete, coherent, and decisive theory of interpretants. > Perhaps some Peirce scholars have developed theories that go beyond what > Peirce wrote. That is possible, but nobody can claim that their theories are > what Peirce himself had intended. > > On these issues, I recommend the article by Albert Atkin in the Stanford > Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first version in 2006 and major update in 2022: > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ > > Atkin has a thorough list of references for anybody who intends to study this > topic. See below for some quotations from the end of the article that show > how incomplete, indefinite, and uncertain Peirce's own writings happen to be. > > I don't want to discourage anybody from discussing interpretants. But since > Peirce himself was uncertain and indecisive, nobody can claim that their > interpretation is what Peirce had intended. > > John > _______________ > > As is common with all of Peirce’s work in philosophy, various changes in > terminology and subtleties with accompanying neologisms occur from one piece > of work to the next. His work on interpretants is no different. At various > points in his final accounts of signs, Peirce describes the division of > interpretants as being: immediate, dynamic and final; or as emotional, > energetic, and logical; or as naïve, rogate and normal; or as intentional, > effective and communicational; or even destinate, effective and explicit. As > Liszka (1990, 20) notes, “the received view in Peirce scholarship suggests > that the divisions of interpretant into immediate, dynamic, and final are > archetypal, all other divisions being relatively synonymous with these > categories.” There are, however, some dissenters from this view. > > In discussing the interpretant, Peirce describes one of the trichotomies > above as follows: > > In all cases [the Interpretant] includes feelings; for there must, at least, > be a sense of comprehending the meaning of the sign. If it includes more than > mere feeling, it must evoke some kind of effort. It may include something > besides, which, for the present, may be vaguely called “thought”. I term > these three kinds of interpretant the “emotional”, the “energetic”, and the > “logical” interpretants. (EP2. 409) > . . . > > Peirce describes the dynamic interpretant as deriving its character from > action (CP8 .315 1904), but later says, “action cannot be a logical > interpretant” (CP5 .491 1906). This seems to make the two inconsistent. (See > Liszka (1990, 21) for more on the problems with Fitzgerald’s claim). > Moreover, this inconsistency seems to suggest a problem for Short’s view > since his account also suggests that the dynamic interpretant should include > the logical interpretant as a subdivision (Short 1981, 213). Short, however, > claims textual support for his own view from instances where Peirce mentions > the emotional/energetic/logical trichotomy alongside the apparently separate > claim that signs have three interpretants. (Short sites (CP8 .333 1904) and > (CP4 .536 1906). Short takes this as suggesting that the two should be > treated as different and distinct trichotomies. (Short 2004, 235). > > How far the textual evidence on the matter will prove decisive is unclear, > especially given the fragmentary nature of Peirce’s final work on signs. > However, one or two things militate in favor of the “received view”. First, > Peirce is notorious for experimenting with terminology, especially when > trying to pin down his own ideas, or describe the same phenomenon from > different angles. Second, it is unclear why trichotomies like the > intentional/effectual/communicational should count as terminological > experiments whilst the emotional/energetic/logical counts as a distinct > division. And finally, there is little provision in Peirce’s projected > sixty-six classes of signs for the kind of additional classifications imposed > by further subdivisions of the interpretant. (For more on this discussion > see, Liszka 1990 and 1996; Fitzgerald 1966; Lalor 1997; Short 1981, 1996, and > 2004). > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <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 > <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto: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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <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 > <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto: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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <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 > <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto: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.
