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

cc: FB | SemeioticsLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 2

  1. Pingback: Interpreter and Interpretant • Discussion 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.