Edwina, List, I am not denying the fact that interpretants, as defined by Peirce, exist, and I am not denying that Peirce's 3-way distinction is good.
But you said that you had not studied the kinds of details that the linguists observe and specify. My claim is that any theory that does not dig deeply into those details is useless. And by "those", I mean every kind of detail that is studied and analyzed by EVERY ONE of the cognitive sciences: philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology. Any serious theory of interpretants must include ALL POSSIBLE INFLUENCES from any and every branch of cognitive science. The kind of generic theory that Peirce attempted is too weak to make any specific predictions in any particular case. I believe that Lady Welby had a good intuitive sense of the need for considering every possible influence, but she did not have the formal training in math & logic that Peirce had. If you examine the development of Peirce's ideas in the decade after he began their correspondence (from 1903 to the end), you can see how Peirce was moving away from more abstract universal definitions to a more concrete focus on details. The first step was a move from a phenomenology based on Kant's abstractions to a phaneroscopy that paid more attention to Welby's focus on concrete details. But that shift made the task far more complex. It's essential to focus on the concrete details of every method of observation. That is why Peirce was groping. He could no longer make broad generalizations, and every attempt to state a generalization forced him to consider how it would affect every detail of every branch, John ---------------------------------------- From: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> John, list I continue to either misunderstand or object - I don’t know which term I should use - to your rejection of the role of the Interpretants. I simply don’t see how the semiosic process can function - and it IS a function - without the necessary role of the Interpretants. How can you have a semiosic triadic function without the third relation - the relation that provides meaning to the original stimulus? That third relation, the meaning[s] is provided by the Interpretant Relations. And I emphasize the plural ecrus the simple one-node site [ the single interpretant or signified] such as is found in Saussure or ….is simply not enough to explain the complexity of the development of information. If you consider the semiosic process - we can see that there are a number of different ‘cuts’, that divides the experience into different zones of semiotic processes. The first cut’ so to speak, is simple: ontological - the separation of external and internal [ See Atmanspacher, H. 1999. ‘Cartesian Cut, Heisenberg Cut and the Concept of Complexity’, In: The Quest for a unified Theory of Information. Eds. W. Hofkirchner. ; 125-147. Matsumo, K [Resurrection of the Cartesian Physics. Same edition; p 31-44. ] This simply separates the sign-vehicle which stores the habits of the representamen from the external world - as Peirce has written, such that the Immediate Object and the Immediate Intnerpretant are internal to this ‘cut’….and the Dynamic Object and Dynamic Interpretant and Final Interpretant are external. Obviously - an internal experience of an incoming data - is not as complex as one that is externalized. But - as you can see in Robert Marty’s outline of the 28 classes of signs [which are hexadic forms, ie, including the two Object Relations and Three Interpretant Relations] that the Internal or Immediate Interpretant can be in any of the three categories - as related to the other Relations in the semiotic triad. The next Interpretant is external to the sign-vehicle - the Dynamic - and inserts a ‘visible’ or objectively knowable and measurable reaction - and moves it into common observance. This is the basis of most of our interactions with the world. BUT - medically, psychologically, and informationally- this external meaning is intimately connected to the data produced within the internal Immediate Interpretant. After all- the Dynamic relies for its ‘base’ on that Immediate input. And the final - as I’ve said before …brings in communal values and habit generation. That is- there are obviously THREE sites/nodes where information is processed, from the internal and possibly isolate form, to the externally reactive and available-to-others …to the development of habits of dealing with this original input data. Information development requires this complexity. My point is that all three developments from the original object-input are vital aspects of the path of informational development, where data moves into information within both the individual and the community. Again - I am either misunderstanding your point or being dumb..… but I consider the three - ie- all three - Interpretants to be vital in the generation of all matter and life. How else is a community to interact with each other, without the observation of the constantly produced Dynamic Interpretants? How else are habits to develop within this community except by the absorption of these Dynamic Interpretants within the Final Interpretant? Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
