Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

[John F Sowa]

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" 

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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

[Edwina Taborsky]

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



> On Feb 9, 2024, at 1:46 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Edwina, List,
> 
> As a logician and mathematician, Peirce understood the methods of precise 
> reasoning in lengthy deductions.  But as a linguist and engineer, he also 
> understood the issues of continuity or synechism.
> 
> In ordinary language, every word has a broad range of meanings.  The senses 
> listed in a dictionary are a small finite set of the the continuum.  Peirce 
> understood that very well in his work for the Century dictionary and 
> Baldwin's dictionary.  
> 
> I have quoted and cited professional lexicographers, who admit "I don't 
> believe in word senses."  Lady Welby said something very  similar, and Peirce 
> agreed.
> 
> You don't need to know or apply any linguistic theory to realize that the 
> issues are so complex that trying to build a theory on top of Peirce's three 
> words is extremely difficult.   As Short said, Peirce was "groping". 
> 
> I'm not saying that Peirce's writings on the subject are wrong.  But I am 
> claiming that if Peirce himself couldn't develop a solid coherent theory, I 
> don't trust anybody else's attempts.
> 
> Question:  Can anybody find a practical version of interpretant theory that 
> is written for anybody other than Peirce scholars?   In short, can it be used 
> for any practical purpose?   What kind of applications would be possible? 
> 
> I mean USEFUL applications that do something practical that could not be done 
> 

[PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

[John F Sowa]

Edwina, List,

As a logician and mathematician, Peirce understood the methods of precise 
reasoning in lengthy deductions.  But as a linguist and engineer, he also 
understood the issues of continuity or synechism.

In ordinary language, every word has a broad range of meanings.  The senses 
listed in a dictionary are a small finite set of the the continuum.  Peirce 
understood that very well in his work for the Century dictionary and Baldwin's 
dictionary.

I have quoted and cited professional lexicographers, who admit "I don't believe 
in word senses."  Lady Welby said something very  similar, and Peirce agreed.

You don't need to know or apply any linguistic theory to realize that the 
issues are so complex that trying to build a theory on top of Peirce's three 
words is extremely difficult.   As Short said, Peirce was "groping".

I'm not saying that Peirce's writings on the subject are wrong.  But I am 
claiming that if Peirce himself couldn't develop a solid coherent theory, I 
don't trust anybody else's attempts.

Question:  Can anybody find a practical version of interpretant theory that is 
written for anybody other than Peirce scholars?   In short, can it be used for 
any practical purpose?   What kind of applications would be possible?

I mean USEFUL applications that do something practical that could not be done 
as well or better without a theory of interpretants.  I have written a lot 
about applications of Peirce's theories in computer science, computational 
linguistics, and artificial intelligence.  But I have never found a use for 
interpretants.  Many other authors have found important applications of 
Peirce's ideas and theories and cited them in their publications.  But I have 
never seen anybody who mentioned interpretants.  Can anybody find any published 
examples?  By anybody for any practical purpose?

That reminds me of the parody:  "This theory is so perfectly general that no 
practical application is possible".

John


,From: "Edwina Taborsky" 

John

I don't see what linguistic understanding of words has to do with the 
interpretants.

The utterer’s Object [his words] can only carry his reality [phaneron] within 
the words he knows. - and as Peirce said - [can’t recall the reference] if the 
Object is unknown, then, the words used to describe it are open to 
interpretation; and if the utterer doesn’t have the words to describe the 
phaneron…this is a problem. AND the context for the meaning of the words is 
held within the knowledge base [ the Represenamen]. This is also a problem - 
what if the utterer has no context for this phaneron???In a constructive 
intreating - presumably, the listener shares some of this contextual knowledge 
base and so, can to a certain extent, understand the Utterer.  If he doesn’t 
share this knowledge base - then- the resultant interpretation is quite 
different from the utterer’s intended meaning.

We all know how such an interaction is open to misunderstanding. And to my 
knowledge, no scholar has ever been able to reduce the capacity for 
misunderstanding these verbal interactions. That’s because of so many issues: 
the different knowledge bases held within the representamens; the multiple 
meanings of words and the reliance on linguistic context, word order, 
intonation …

I don’t see what these issues have to do with the three interpretants.

My view of the interpretants refers to a situation where data/information is 
moved from the Object via the Representamen’s knowledge base ---and the 
Interpretant's function is to clarify the nature of the input data…from its 
first internal reaction…moving on to a reaction to that input…and maybe, 
sometime…if these interactions are operative within a community - to the 
development of a habit-of-dealing with this input. So, an animal will develop a 
thick coat of fur to deal with long term cooling temperatures and this 
behaviour will be common to all members of the local species.

As for linguistics - I’m not a follower of that discipline- and so, can only 
refer to Bakhtin’s ‘dialogic’ emphasis on context enabling linguistic changes.

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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

[Edwina Taborsky]

John

I don't see what linguistic understanding of words has to do with the 
interpretants. 

The utterer’s Object [his words] can only carry his reality [phaneron] within 
the words he knows. - and as Peirce said - [can’t recall the reference] if the 
Object is unknown, then, the words used to describe it are open to 
interpretation; and if the utterer doesn’t have the words to describe the 
phaneron…this is a problem. AND the context for the meaning of the words is 
held within the knowledge base [ the Represenamen]. This is also a problem - 
what if the utterer has no context for this phaneron???In a constructive 
intreating - presumably, the listener shares some of this contextual knowledge 
base and so, can to a certain extent, understand the Utterer.  If he doesn’t 
share this knowledge base - then- the resultant interpretation is quite 
different from the utterer’s intended meaning. 

We all know how such an interaction is open to misunderstanding. And to my 
knowledge, no scholar has ever been able to reduce the capacity for 
misunderstanding these verbal interactions. That’s because of so many issues: 
the different knowledge bases held within the representamens; the multiple 
meanings of words and the reliance on linguistic context, word order, 
intonation …

I don’t see what these issues have to do with the three interpretants. 

My view of the interpretants refers to a situation where data/information is 
moved from the Object via the Representamen’s knowledge base ---and the 
Interpretant's function is to clarify the nature of the input data…from its 
first internal reaction…moving on to a reaction to that input…and maybe, 
sometime…if these interactions are operative within a community - to the 
development of a habit-of-dealing with this input. So, an animal will develop a 
thick coat of fur to deal with long term cooling temperatures and this 
behaviour will be common to all members of the local species. 

As for linguistics - I’m not a follower of that discipline- and so, can only 
refer to Bakhtin’s ‘dialogic’ emphasis on context enabling linguistic changes. 

Edwina

> On Feb 8, 2024, at 6:21 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Edwina,
> 
> I was just copying what Short said.  If you don't have it, I'll send you the 
> PDF of his entire book.
> 
> All Peirce scholars agree that Peirce had settled on three kinds of 
> interpretants.  I don't deny that.  But there is no information about how 
> anybody can determine how the utterer can express the content of the phaneron 
> as a linguistic sign, and how the listener can interpret the uttered sign.  
> The critical issue for both of them is the context which may be much more 
> difficult to determine than the words in the utterance.
> 
> In a previous note, I recommended the 70 page article by Keith Devlin, 
> "Confronting context effects in intelligence analysis".   You don't have to 
> read the whole thing because the early examples show why context is so 
> overwhelmingly important in determining the interpretant.  Just look  below 
> for an example from page 9 of 
> 
>  
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228579637_Confronting_context_effects_in_intelligence_analysis_How_can_mathematics_help
> 
> Just one example like that undermines everything Peirce wrote about 
> determining the interpretant.  And examples like that can be repeated 
> endlessly.   Devlin's article is one source, but any detailed analysis of 
> language in context will turn up endless numbers of examples.
> 
> John
> __
>  
> From: "Edwina Taborsky" " style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 102, 
> 147); text-decoration: underline; user-select: 
> auto;"> 
> 
> John, list
> 
> I disagree with your view that Peirce never had a coherent theory of the 
> interpretants’. I find his outlines clear and coherent  and are all through 
> his writings- in that it is logical and obvious that the triad includes not 
> merely a single interpretant but several - and these several are basic and 
> functional.  That is- the notion of not merely one but three Interpretants 
> is, I feel, basic to the Peircena semiosis
> _
> 
> Example from page 9 of "Confronting context effects in intelligence analysis" 
> by Keith Devlin.  The actual sentences that were spoken are in BOLD.  And the 
> context is in italics.   Without the context, it's impossible to determine 
> the interpretant of the sentence.
> 
> HUSBAND: Dana succeeded in putting a penny in a parking meter today without
> being picked up.
> 
> This afternoon as I was bringing Dana, our four-year-old son, home from the
> nursery school, he succeeded in reaching high enough to put a penny in a 
> parking
> meter when we parked in a meter zone, whereas before he has always had to be
> picked up to reach that 

[PEIRCE-L] Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

[John F Sowa]

Edwina,

I was just copying what Short said.  If you don't have it, I'll send you the 
PDF of his entire book.

All Peirce scholars agree that Peirce had settled on three kinds of 
interpretants.  I don't deny that.  But there is no information about how 
anybody can determine how the utterer can express the content of the phaneron 
as a linguistic sign, and how the listener can interpret the uttered sign.  The 
critical issue for both of them is the context which may be much more difficult 
to determine than the words in the utterance.

In a previous note, I recommended the 70 page article by Keith Devlin, 
"Confronting context effects in intelligence analysis".   You don't have to 
read the whole thing because the early examples show why context is so 
overwhelmingly important in determining the interpretant.  Just look  below for 
an example from page 9 of 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228579637_Confronting_context_effects_in_intelligence_analysis_How_can_mathematics_help

Just one example like that undermines everything Peirce wrote about determining 
the interpretant.  And examples like that can be repeated endlessly.   Devlin's 
article is one source, but any detailed analysis of language in context will 
turn up endless numbers of examples.

John
__

From: "Edwina Taborsky" 

John, list

I disagree with your view that Peirce never had a coherent theory of the 
interpretants’. I find his outlines clear and coherent  and are all through his 
writings- in that it is logical and obvious that the triad includes not merely 
a single interpretant but several - and these several are basic and functional. 
 That is- the notion of not merely one but three Interpretants is, I feel, 
basic to the Peircena semiosis
_

Example from page 9 of "Confronting context effects in intelligence analysis" 
by Keith Devlin.  The actual sentences that were spoken are in BOLD.  And the 
context is in italics.   Without the context, it's impossible to determine the 
interpretant of the sentence.

HUSBAND: Dana succeeded in putting a penny in a parking meter today without
being picked up.

This afternoon as I was bringing Dana, our four-year-old son, home from the
nursery school, he succeeded in reaching high enough to put a penny in a parking
meter when we parked in a meter zone, whereas before he has always had to be
picked up to reach that high.

WIFE: Did you take him to the record store?

Since he put a penny in a meter that means that you stopped while he was with
you. I know that you stopped at the record store either on the way to get him or
on the way back. Was it on the way back, so that he was with you or did you stop
there on the way to get him and somewhere else on the way back.

HUSBAND: No, to the shoe repair shop.

No, I stopped at the record store on the way to get him and stopped at the shoe
repair shop on the way home when he was with me.

WIFE: What for?

I know of one reason why you might have stopped at the shoe repair shop. Why did
you in fact?

HUSBAND: I got some new shoe laces for my shoes.

As you will remember I broke a shoe lace on one of my brown Oxfords the other
day so I stopped to get some new laces.

WIFE: Your loafers need new heels badly.

Something else you could have gotten that I was thinking of. You could have 
taken
in your black loafers which need heels badly. You’d better get them taken care 
of
pretty soon.

A number of things are obvious about this particular exercise. First, the 
original
conversation is remarkably everyday and mundane, and concerns an extremely
restricted domain of family activity. Second, the degree of detail given in the 
subsequent
‘explanations’ or ‘elaborations’ of what each person said seems quite arbitrary.
It is easy to imagine repeating the exercise over again, this time providing 
still further
explanation. And then it could be repeated a third time. Then a fourth. And so 
on,
and so on, and so on. Apart from boredom or frustration, there does not seem to 
be
any obvious stopping point.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.