Jeff, List:
Again, my definition is intended as a summary based on Peirce's various
descriptions of the immediate interpretant in his different writings. That
said, I believe that it is compatible with the particular one that you
quoted (CP 8.315, EP 2:500, 1909 Apr 1). The immediate
nts and necessitants. How
> does this division apply to your definition?
>
> Yours,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
>
>
> --------
8 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:57 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The plethora of Interpretants
Auke, List:
JAS: I continue to stand by my own definitions.
AvB: Own definitions? I only see citations.
My own d
Auke, List:
JAS: I continue to stand by my own definitions.
AvB: Own definitions? I only see citations.
My own definitions are stated in the very next sentence, copied verbatim
from a previous post.
JAS: The immediate interpretant is whatever a sign type *possibly could*
signify within the
Jon Alen,
you wrote: I continue to stand by my own definitions.
Own definitions? I only see citations.
You wrote: I am really trying to understand both the system and the process.
My question: is the text you wrote (see just below) in the same paragraph
indicating your process view?
Auke, List:
AvB: The relevant part: "I have been accustomed to identify this
[immediate interpretant] with the effect the sign first produces or may
produce upon a mind".
Peirce leaves two options open for the immediate interpretant here--it
is *either
*the effect that the sign first
John,
Thanks for this info. I came to this conclusion by analyzing the 8th signtype
(rhematic, symbolic, legisign) from the point of view of KiF. ()= involvement.
The outer brackets signify that the process is not yet finished. It just are
fragments of what is involved in the proces: sheet,
Jon and Auke,
General principle: Never assume that Peirce was
unaware of or hadn't considered some issue. Peirce had studied Aristotle
in depth, and he would certainly be familiar with the first paragraph of
_On Interpretation_:
Aristotle> First we must determine what are
noun (onoma)
and
Jon Alen,
You cite:
CSP: I do not mean by "collateral observation" acquaintance with the system of
signs. What is so gathered is not COLLATERAL. It is on the contrary the
prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the Sign. (CP 8.179, EP 2:494,
1909)
and continue:
The immediate
Auke, List:
AvB: I do not even need to read te second and third alinea of your post
... And to be frank I think it is better to leave your 'explanation' in the
2nd and 3th alinea undiscussed in all detail.
Okay, but those two paragraphs are quite relevant to my overall theory of
semeiosis and
Jon Alen,
I do not even need to read te second and third alinea of your post. Of course
Short is right in this view. But that is trivial and not in conflict with my
statement. It simply follows from the difference in viewpoint: type vs process.
And to be frank I think it is better to leave
Auke, List:
I agree that the relationship between the immediate/dynamical/final
interpretants and emotional/energetic/logical interpretants has been the
subject of considerable and ongoing debate. As we discussed recently, I
subscribe to the view that the two sets of terms are orthogonal to each
Auke, list - Right - I was merely suggesting, exactly, that this is
a long debated issue. Therefore, the argument is whether these terms
are just synonyms [which seems to be The Rejected Argument] vs
whether they are placeholders. And as you note - expanded
placeholders.
Edwina, list,
That is a debated issue. Bergman did summarize the main positions: Fitzgerald,
Short and Zeman.
In my opinion the logical interpretant of the emotional, energetic, logical
sequence is a placeholder for the other triplet. Van Driel was the first to
write this, but without
As a side note - there's an interesting paper, by Lucia
Santaella-Braga, on 'Methodeutics; the liveliest branch of
semiotics'. in Semiotica 124[-3/4]. 1999. p 377-395, in which, among
other things [she's reviewing a book by Liszka] she outlines the full
nature of the Interpretants,
15 matches
Mail list logo
