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?

On Feb 9, 2024, at 1:46 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@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@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@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to list@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.