Show threadJon AwbreyJan 28, 2024

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 2
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/28/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-2/

In the next passage up for review the hypostatic abstraction of a person to conduct the movement of signs is described by Peirce as a Sop to Cerberus, a rhetorical gambit set to side‑step a persistent difficulty of exposition.

❝It is clearly indispensable to start with an accurate and broad analysis of the nature of a Sign. I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of “upon a person” is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood.❞ (Peirce 1908, Selected Writings, p. 404).

Reference —

Peirce, C.S. (1908), “Letters to Lady Welby”, Chapter 24, pp. 380–432 in Charles S. Peirce : Selected Writings (Values in a Universe of Chance), Edited with Introduction and Notes by Philip P. Wiener, Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1966.

Resource —

Hypostatic Abstraction
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/08/hypostatic-abstraction/

#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Aristotle #Interpretation #Hermeneutics #InterpretantSign
#Abstraction #HypostaticAbstraction #SopToCerberus #Pragma

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 2

In the next passage up for review the hypostatic abstraction of a person to conduct the movement of signs is described by Peirce as a Sop to Cerberus, a rhetorical gambit set to side‑step a p…

Inquiry Into Inquiry
Jon AwbreyJan 27, 2024

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 1
• http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/27/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-1/

Questions about the relation between “interpreters” and “interpretants” in Peircean semiotics have broken out again. To put the matter as pointedly as possible, because I know someone or other is bound to — In a theory of three‑place relations among objects, signs, and interpretant signs, where indeed is there any place for the interpretive agent?

By way of getting my feet on the ground with the issue I'll do what always helped me before and review a small set of basic texts. Here is the first.

Figure 1. The Sign Relation in Aristotle
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/awbrey-awbrey-1995-e280a2-figure-1.png

❝Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or impressions (pathemata) of the soul (psyche); written words are the signs of words spoken. As writing, so also is speech not the same for all races of men. But the mental affections themselves, of which these words are primarily signs (semeia), are the same for the whole of mankind, as are also the objects (pragmata) of which those affections are representations or likenesses, images, copies (homoiomata).❞ (Aristotle, De Interp. i. 16a4).

References —

Aristotle, “On Interpretation” (De Interp.), Harold P. Cooke (trans.), pp. 111–179 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.

Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20001210162300/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Aristotle #Interpretation #Hermeneutics #InterpretantSign

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 1

$latex \text{Figure 1. The Sign Relation in Aristotle}&fg=000000$ Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or impressions (pathemata) of the soul (psyche);  written words …

Inquiry Into Inquiry