List: The process of semiosis never *originates *"within the individual," it is always continuous and ongoing. As Peirce put it, "just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us" (CP 5.289n1, EP 1:42n1, 1868). Also, "Consciousness may mean any one of the three categories. But if it is to mean Thought it is more without us than within. It is we that are in it, rather than it in any of us" (CP 8.256, 1902).
We prescind "individual" signs with their antecedent objects and subsequent interpretants from the real and continuous process of semiosis as *entia rationis*, artifacts of analysis. In that sense, we *identify *the sign being analyzed first, then its two objects, then its three interpretants. Here is the referenced example, which is in a letter that Peirce wrote to William James. CSP: For instance, suppose I awake in the morning before my bedfellow, and that afterwards she wakes up and inquires, "What sort of a day is it?" *This *is a Sign, whose Object, as expressed, is the weather at that time, but whose Dynamical Object is the *impression which I have presumably derived from peeping between the window curtains*. Whose Interpretant, as expressed, is the quality of the weather, but whose Dynamical Interpretant is *my answering her question*. But beyond that, there is a *third *Interpretant. The *Immediate Interpretant* is what the Question expresses, *all *that it immediately expresses, which I have imperfectly restated above. The *Dynamical Interpretant* is the actual effect that it has upon me, its interpreter. But the Significance of it, the *Ultimate*, or *Final*, *Interpretant *is her *purpose *in asking it, what effect its answer will have as to her plans for the ensuing day. (CP 8.314, EP 2:498, 1909) The sign/representamen being analyzed here is not anything *within *Peirce himself, it is his wife's spoken question; and the reason why he can respond by giving an answer to that question--such action *itself *being its dynamical interpretant, not whatever sign he thereby utters--is because he *already *has an impression of the weather outside by virtue of having awakened earlier and looked through the window. Otherwise, the dynamical interpretant of her question would have been his *subsequent *action of peeping between the curtains. In any case, Peirce is giving a *retrospective *description of a series of *hypothetical *instants in time. CSP: Just as it is strictly correct to say that nobody is ever in an exact Position (except instantaneously, and an Instant is a fiction, or *ens rationis*), but Positions are either vaguely described states of motion of small range, or else (what is the better view), are *entia rationis* (i.e. fictions recognized to be fictions, and thus no longer fictions) invented for the purposes of closer descriptions of states of motion; so likewise, Thought (I am not talking Psychology, but Logic, or the essence of Semeiotics) cannot, from the nature of it, be at rest, or be anything but inferential process; and propositions are either roughly described states of Thought-motion, or are artificial creations intended to render the description of Thought-motion possible; and Names are creations of a second order serving to render the representation of propositions possible. (LF 3/1:234-235, 1906; see also CP 2.27, 1902) In summary, the sequence of any *analysis *of an event of semiosis is sign, object, interpretant; but the temporal and logical sequence of semiosis *itself* is always object, sign, interpretant. As Gary correctly noted last night, this is not *in any way* controversial among scholars of Peirce's speculative grammar. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:21 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary r > > I hope you noticed that in the quotation provided by JAS - there was yet > another use of the term ‘mode’ in reference to the sign process.. You > previously expressed surprise, saying that you could never understand why I > use the term- and I hope that this shows you that my use is not > an aberration.. > > As for the outline of the determination process of information movement - > from the Object through Represenetamen to Interpretant - there’s no dispute > from my side on that. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Obviously > data and information moves from the external source of stimulus….via the > processing site [ the Representamen ] to a conclusion/interpretant. > > What I’m talking about is the origin of the process of semiosis within the > individual. Peirce outlines this very well in 8.314 where he explains his > interaction with the current weather. And - the process doesn’t BEGIN with > the external Object, the weather. It begins with him, as the sign-vehicle, > the holder of the mediating Representamen... ‘peeping between the window > curtains’. The dynamical Object “is the impression which I have presumably > derived from peeping between the window curtains”. Note - that the DO as a > pat of the semiosic process emerges only with Peirce taking action and > interacting with the external weather. > > So- the process begins with Peirce, as the sign vehicle, making an active > connection with the external weather [the Dynamic Object]….This interaction > then can move into the linear informational stage with the data of this DO > being interpreted by Peirce [Representamen holder]…to an Interpretant. > > That is - there are TWO processes to examine…. > > Andn of course, I absolutely disagree with JAS’s claim that First, Second > and Third don’t refer to this ordinal process of semiosic integration as > outlined by Peirce in the weather example..but to the number of correlates > and their type! I think here’s a difference in terminology between ordinal > and cardinal terms. > > 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
