The world correlate chapter 1 end

The Interpretants

   At this point we must distinguish major differences between significants and interpretants as well as between significance or meanings and interpretants, the logic of Saussure as discussed above, is ruled by the structural division between language and speech so that significants and meanings are affected by it, while the Peirce interpretant born and grow as concept from a completely different side of logic, first it born directly from philosophical logic not from linguistic issues, the relation between sensible multiplicities or palpable sensoriality as the datas of the sense and on how representation deal with it were at the Forefront of how Peirce conceived his semiotic.

   As a Hegelian, Peirce focused in the paradoxes about how substance name the subject allowing the articulations between subject and predicaments, meaning how the concept as synthetic unity reduce to a minimum such sensible multiplicities of palpable sensoriality and how from that we learn by inferences and deductions in between the properties or qualities of things and the synthesis of representation, so that the interpretants as well as all the triadic principles of Peirce including ground, representatements, correlates and interpretants grow from it on how representation relates with its objects.

  If we see from the point of view of how the concept of interpretant presuppose that a sign is in the place of an object and that many interpretants might be related in between translating each one to the another according to an endless semiosis with dispense of the object, by a moment, we may have the impression that significant and Interpretants are similars, at least if we assume the derrida critique of the concept of sign as an enclosed unity, but the Impresión will be futile, nothing as far in between than significants and Interpretants.

  The idea of significants source and arises from the structural division of form and contents which was the result of cutting language sincronically, it is nothing else than an abstraction of the static intemporal dimension of a form considered as belonging to a language understanded structurally as ever the same, the idea of the Interpretants instead source and arised from distinguishing the qualities of the objects from the synthesis of its representation, so in respect to referentiality as a cognitive matter.

   Hence the possibility of a disseminated theory of the endless chain of significants leads us to a completely different area of ontology than the idea of endless chain of Interpretants

   The interpretant is a cognitive unity, something at the simbolic level of representational synthesis replace the object and establishes itself in its place, such a replacement must thus be comprehended by the relation between the ground --the sign toward the object--, the representatements--qualities of the object reflected in the sign --see for example peirce indicial signs in comparition with icons--, the correlates which solves the duality ground/toward-representatement/reflection, in respect to referentiality grounding thus the ontology of the interpretants which start by translations=Interpretants the chain of meaning

   We should pay attention here on a major difference as to foreseen, the significantd might work endless in between the dispensing of meanings, while the interpretants may work endless in between dispensing of the objects not precisely of meanings, in a few words the constant infinity endless of the travel through significants is a chain of form without meaning while the constant and infinity endless of interpretants between interpretants is a chain of meanings without objects, what the significants replace or substitute are the meanings which are dispersed through the play of constant differences, what the interprentant replace and substitute are the objects and the references by stablishing a chain of meanings defined by translations between interpretants which are always in the place of the objects, replacing and substituting it.

   In this sense the derredean game of significants differences without meaning toward us to the text or to texere as a weave of texts, while the so-called infinity semiosis of Peirce brings us to culture, so that the infinity endless of significants is one of form and syntax with the succor of differences, while the infinity endless of Peirce semiosis is a chain of meanings, in this sense I have a discovered proposal of both reading and epistemology, while the relation with structure of the significants source as well as goes through from Saussure to derrida from the separation of langue and speech and according to a syntactic and formal chain between substance of expression and differences, the relation of the interpretants with structure I want to propose here must be defined is a symbolic one, it might be explained not according to a prestablished cutt in real social space between forms of language use, but in respect to the relation ground, representatement, correlate interpretant which defines the cognitive basis of Peirce theory, while we can also carefully operate methodological cooperation’s between both logics, certainly significants replace meanings opening it to the game of differences but it can’t replace interpretants since interpretants are unthinkable from the significants logic.

   The interpretants are cognitive unities relatibly unclosed by principles of relation between representation and the objects of it, the significants are formal unities, the structurally of the interpretants source and arise directly from the cognitive distinction between language and reality, representation and reality, it is based and arises from its own composition and attributes, the representantment,-- the moment of the sign reflecting at the sign level something of its object, the ground, --the moment of the sign addressed to, directed to, toward or indicating the object which should be like the denotation, the correlates and the interpretants which are nothing else than the unities by which representatment and ground establish a correlate.

  The interpretants in facts are equivalents in pierce to Saussure meanings, they establish meaning according to a principle of translations between interpretants, but with a major difference, Saussure meaning is thinked as the content of the substance of expression, the meaning of a form as its content, form and matter represented by the significant, significance instead means the meaning of form, and the interpretants instead are far to it.

   far to be itself formal expressions of substance –significants--and fully immaterialized contents of that substances, --meanings-- the interpretants are little cognitive unities take shape by a triadic principle by which it is at the same time reference and replace the objects by its meanings, while the concept of meaning here is thinked in a different form, it is not the content of pregiven convention not the contents of a form, but the correlate of a ground and a representatement defines the ontology of the interpretants

The interpretants

Representatement: reflect or a reflected dimension of the object in the sign

Ground: moment of the sign indicating or addressing the object

Correlate: the relation of both reference and replacement establish the basis of the interpretants

Interpretants: synthetic cognitive unities by which the signs translated in between stablishes a chain of meanings

   Again, according to the idea of endless circulation of significants without meanings from signicants to significants one may think about a similarity to Peirce endless semiosis but the similarity is only apparent, the circulation through significant goes within forms, it allows us to pure syntaxes and its endless is guaranty by the principle of difference, the identy of each since defined according to what it is not, difference, diffentiality thus activate here a chain of pure significants without meanings, this is the game of the marks, of each sign as pure mark and of difference as unconcient according to Derrida, a negative circulation negates meaning

   There is never significant by significant a ground, a representatment, a correlate and interpretants because the significants are not thinked as something between language and reality, representation and its objects as the interpretants are, thus, the endless semiosis of Peirce is of another kind of circulation, here what circulates is far to be a game of marks, of presence and non-presence, of identity and difference between signs and non-signs, or between the identity of what it is and what it is not, but a symbolic circulation of meanings in which the ground, that which toward the object, the representatement that which reflect the object in the sign and the correlate free the interpretants, relations between sign translating one to the other without an end, it is the task, the attempt, and attaining of another way around, the play of meaning independence from the object as a symbolic replacement of the object which inhabit to a certain point as semiosis in the game of meanings, this is why Peirce semiotic had being considered a kind of pragmatism, we should increase at this point in traing to conciliate and understand the point of contacts by which symbolism and pragmatism meet.

   We must thus identify here an aesthetic and textual circulation, that of the significants, and a cultural one, that of the interpretants, in fact, according to Eco, the sign in Peirce allow us to think about it as a cultural unity something that allow us to consider in Eco words “the replacement of cultural anthropology by semiotic”, I agree with eco to a certain levels, not necessarily of a full replacement of cultural anthropology by semiotic but about that semiotic theory must rule and control the future of cultural anthropology instead of the opposite as well as on the effort to try to consider the relation between Peirce semiotic and semantique in his discussion of Kats and fodor KF trip as in the analysis of lesemas, lexicology and the quillian model in his essay the universe of sense, but eco himself recognized how the componential semantique is limited by the constant variations of meaning among situations and contexts.

    In this sense we might attempt to attain a theoretical semantique conciliated with sintaxsis or developed from it as a matter of surfaces interactions working the interpretants as cultural theory so exploring a cooperation between derridean significants circulations and Peirce interpretants semiosis and retheorizing the possibilities of the interpretants to work in cultural theory.

   At this point an interesting quote included by eco at the absent structure might be requoted here

     It is a known thing that a whole tendency of transformative grammatical recognize in syntactic structure the objective to stablish the semantic interpretant of the enunciation, establishing in consequence the condition of selection of the itinerary discovered through the component analysis

    And quoting Chomsky

    As overlined by Kats and Fodor it is evident that the meaning of a phrase is bases in the meaning of its elemental parts and its combinations, it is also evident that the form of combination we may see in superficial structure in general is totally irrelevant to semantique interpretation, whence in many cases the grammar relation expressed at the Deep abstract structure are which determine the meaning of the phrase

   But Later Chomsky variate his position as sustained in his essay Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation defining semantique interpretation in a mid-way between superficial and deep structure, another authors as lakoff attempt to constitute a generative semantique overlined the intimacy relation between syntactic phenomena’s and semantique phenomena’s

Telos/non telos

     All the previously discussed have an effect and a consequence on the temporality of thought, the issue of telos understanded as both the should be, the duty, and as the question on toward what, implicitit to the activity of theorizing and thinking in both forms as aprioris, meaning the telos evolved within presuppositions and as positioning in terms of the horizonts --tells--while it also have consequences on the issue of non-telos

   Telos is by itself at least as discussed by Hegel related with the idea of progression involving the pleasure aesthetically of the style of writing and thinking as well as the content level without excluding the ethical issues evolved around how theorizing realize to be in relation with world of life and the quotidian.

   This is an issue of prior importance today not only in term of fashion but in term of how to deliberate the balance between telos and non-telos, as telos is progression, non-telos remark the simultaneous and synchronic temporality or process evolved in the activity of writing, how much to accent or priorize in the horizonts of theorizing telos as progression evolved in presuppositions and horizonts, and non-telos as the pay attention during the process of thinking to the here and now of the sicronic production of it?

   Well, to tell the true, at last telos is method so that under it we deliberate how each book and each essay make system with other books and essays inside a book as well as we deliberate the relation between the parts and the whole of a work in this sense the percent by which we decide to exchange the telos components of the text with the capacity to pay attention to the non-progressive temporality of the simultaneous process, non tells, the last one is nothing else than the ethical dimension of the text in regard to non-text, and in such a sense, such a deliberation of a balance is a part of the methodological results.

   As a general comment on this remark I should say that as much as I am agree with the importance attributed by habermas to telos inside theory I am equality agree with the importance attributed by Stephen A Tyler to the non-teleological dimension of the text so like in respect to postmodern, I am exploring an intermedia balance in between both temporal dimensions, telos and non telos.

 Bibliography

Derrida Jacques, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Derrida Jacques, Form and Wishes to say, Note son the phenomenology of language, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, La Forma y el Querer Decir, Notas sobre la Fenomenología del Lenguaje, Márgenes de la Filosofía, Catedra

Eagleton Terry, literary theory, an introduction Univ of Minnesota Press; 3 edition (April 2, 2008)

Eagleton Terry, Introducción a la crítica literaria, lumen

Eco Umberto, The Universe of Sense, Pp, 62-136, the Absent Structure

Eco Umberto, The Semantique System, Pp, 81-94, The Absent Structure

Eco Umberto, The Semantique Components, Pp 107-120, The Absent Structure

Eco Umberto, El Universo del Sentido, Pp 2-136, La Estructura Ausente, Lumen

Eco Umberto, Pierce, La Estructura Ausente, Lumen

Eco Umberto, Lector in Fabula: La Cooperación interpretativa en el texto narrativo, lumen

Gadamer George, Estética y hermenéutica, Tecnos, colección metrópolis

Geertz Clifford, (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture, en The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York, pp 3–30. [Geertz 1973a]

Geertz Clifford, La Descripción Densa, La Interpretación de las Culturas, Barcelona, Gedisa, 1987

Junger Habermas, The Problem of Comprehension in social sciences, the Theory of communicative action, Beacon Press

Junger Habermas, First Interlude, the Theory of communicative action, Beacon Press

Junger Habermas, El Problema de la Comprensión en las ciencias sociales, teoría de la acción comunicativa, Taurus

Junger Habermas, Interludio Primero, teoría de la acción comunicativa, Taurus

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, the intramundane Horizont, Complete Works, Tome V and Pp, The Constelations of Common Sense, Selected Essays

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, stratus confines, pp, The Presentational Linguistic, Complete Works, Tome III

Hegel G.W.F, Forma y materia, ciencia de la lógica, Solar, Hachete

Hegel G.W.F, Forma y contenido, ciencia de la lógica, Solar, Hachete

Hegel G.W.F, Forma y esencia, ciencia de la lógica, Solar, Hachete

Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, form and master, Science of Logic London: George Allen & Unwin, 1929, translated by W. H. Johnston and L. G. Struthers, translated by Henry S. Macran (Hegel's Logic of World and Idea) (Bk III Pts II, III only). Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1929translated by A. V. Miller; Foreword by J. N. Findlay. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1969, Prometheus; Later Printing edition (December 1, 1991), Humanity books, translated by George di Giovanni, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010

Sini Carlos, peirce, Pp, 13-81, semiótica y filosofía, hachete (semiótica e filosofía, il molino, Bolonia, Italia), 1985

Todorov Tzvetan, Symbolism and Interpretation, Cornell University Press, Feb 18, 1986

Todorov Tzvetan , Genres in Discourse, Cambridge University Press, Published August 31st 1990 by (first published 1978)

Todorov Tzvetan, Simbolismo e interpretación Todorov, monte avila editores, pasa monte books

Todorov.Tzvetan "Los géneros del discurso" (Waldhuter editores, 2012)

Todorov Tzvetan. Teorías del símbolo, monteavila editores

Todorov Tzvetan. Critica de la Crítica, Editorial Paidós

Tyler a Stephen, constrains of propositions, context of discourse, semantique analysis, Pp, 116-121, a point of order, rice university studies