Edwina, List: ET: That is - I am also suggesting that Firstness is not simply quality, feeling, chance - but - is entropy.
I guess I need to get more up to speed on how Sign-action works in the physico-chemical and biological realms before we can tie up this particular loose end. Please keep me posted on any further changes that you might end up making to your model in light of our collaborative adjustments so far. ET: This I will have to think about, since my definition of habits gives it the ability to adapt and evolve. I'm not sure if the Final Interpretant has this ability. Understood. I was careful to suggest that it is a *tendency*, rather than something strictly *deterministic*, precisely because habits can be modified over time. ET: HABIT does govern which 'actual effects the sign tends to produce from its range of possible effects'...but is the Final Interpretant - which Peirce acknowledges is open and may never be reached - is it the same as 'habit'? There is a strong case for saying: Yes - as long as it has that ability to adapt and evolve. Agreed. My impression is that Peirce was never fully satisfied that he had properly worked out the details of all three Interpretants and their relations with the Sign--especially the Final Interpretant, given that he wrote, "I confess that my own conception of this third interpretant is not yet quite free from mist" (CP 4.536; 1906). However, he did explicitly describe the final *logical *intepretant as a habit (CP 5.491, EP 2:418; 1907), and I have decided to run with that hint by proposing to define the Final Interpretant as a habit of feeling (1ns), action (2ns), or thought (3ns). Thanks, Jon On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > See my comments: > > > 1) ET: But what happens when an instantiation is isolated from > interaction with other instances? > > > JAS: This sounds like "existing outside semeiosis." Is that even > possible? Once a Sign is "born"--determined by a Dynamic Object to be > capable of determining a Dynamic Interpretant--can it ever "die"; i.e., > cease to be a Sign? I suppose that it might somehow lose that > capability; i.e., no longer have an Immediate Interpretant, which would > mean that it no longer qualifies as a Sign. Is that what you have in > mind, or something else? > > EDWINA: No- I'm claiming that there is no such thing as an existence > outside semiosis. Let's say, again, a molecule of hydrogen. Its Dynamic > Objects are the hydrogen atoms; its Immediate Objects are these 'trapped > hydrogen atoms; its Representamen/sign is the laws of chemical formation > which have 'trapped' the atoms in their laws; its Immediate Interpretant is > the result of this - the Hydrogen molecule which instantiates as the > Dynamic Interpretant, the Hydrogen molecule. Now - IF this Hydrogen > molecule is isolated - it will dissipate. That is - the categorical mode of > Firstness is built into the semiosic system such that stability for > infinity - is impossible. The first to dissipate will be the external > existence, the Dynamic Interpretant - that molecule. Can the Representamen > dissipate if not used/ articulated as instantiations? I'd suggest: YES. > That means that its capacity to produce an Immediate Interpretant also > dissipates. This would happen very rarely if at all, but, the possibility > of its occurrence is real. > > Take another example. a cell, which is composed of various smaller > cells/molecules etc, and is organized according to habits. The cell is a > Dynamic Interpretant of the Dynamic ObjectS [and there are multiple DOs] as > organized by the semoisic interaction of the IO- Representamen-II. Now, IF > that cell is isolated from interaction - since Firstness or dissipation is > built into the system - then, it will dissipate. > > That is - I am also suggesting that Firstness is not simply quality, > feeling, chance - but - is entropy. > =============================================== > > 2] ET: A cell that has only itself, isolate from all other cells - will > die and decompose. The fact that the cell includes 'habits' of its > formation won't help keep it alive; it MUST interact with the external envt > or it will decompose. > > > Agreed, although it seems to me that semeiosis continues to happen--the > dead cell is still, in some sense, interacting with its external > environment to bring about that very decomposition. Obviously, though, > that interaction is very different from when it was alive. > > EDWINA: Agreed - semiosis continues, in a different form than when it was > alive. > ======================================================== > > 3] JASWe really have not yet touched on where habits belong in our new > model. As I have said before, I see them as Final Interpretants; and I did > not want to bring those up until we finished sorting out the Immediate and > Dynamic Interpretants. This is right off the top of my head, but if the > Immediate Interpretant is internal (1ns) and the Dynamic Interpretant is > external (2ns), then perhaps the Final Interpretant is what mediates > between them (3ns). In other words, as a habit, the Final Interpretant > governs which actual effects the Sign tends to produce from its range of > possible effects. What do you think? > > EDWINA: This I will have to think about, since my definition of habits > gives it the ability to adapt and evolve. I'm not sure if the Final > Interpretant has this ability. HABIT does govern which 'actual effects > the sign tends to produce from its range of possible effects'...but is the > Final Interpretant - which Peirce acknowledges is open and may never be > reached - is it the same as 'habit'? There is a strong case for saying: Yes > - as long as it has that ability to adapt and evolve. > > EDWINA - yes - incredible - but we do agree, and I think that this model - > that basic internal triad, but necessarily related to an external Dynamic > Objects or indeed to multiple Dynamic Objects - gives the internal triad a > tremendous flexibility and adaptive capacity. Just what I've been looking > for! > > > Wow. This will be a day long remembered--in a very good way! I will be > quite interested in learning whether and how this adjustment affects your > model in other ways as you contemplate and implement it further. > > Thanks, > > Jon > >
----------------------------- 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 l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
