9 Feb
2024
9 Feb
'24
9:14 p.m.
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
<sowa(a)bestweb.net> 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 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" <edwina.taborsky(a)gmail.com>
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(a)list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to list(a)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.