Auke - thanks for your clear differentiation of two quite different
semiosic processes - regardless of their terms/names.
That is, as I see it, there IS such a thing as 'Truth' and there IS
such a thing as natural evolution. Both are semiosic actions and both
have different functions and yet both are a type of 'end' action.
A] With regard to Truth - I consider that this refers to a specific
object/event where a final Interpretant about its singular identity
can eventually be made. This would be, as in the example, the verdict
of the jury. Or, the verdict of a number of scientists about the
'true' identity of a biological specimen. This sets up a closed 'end'
action.
B] But this is very different from the 'final interpretant/eventual
interpretant which refers to the continuous act of the Universe in
generalizing from all the existent and emerging differences and
developing a new habit/law. There is no ultimate truth, no final 'end
action' in this process. Instead, there is a continuous growth of
diversity and networked complexity.
I suspect, but I may be quite wrong, that JAS considers that the
Universe is itself engaged in truth-seeking and is involved in a
search-action for some ultimate final truth. My view is that Peirce
uses both processes; the specific truth event and the generalized
open evolutionary process.
Edwina
On Fri 17/04/20 4:11 AM , a.bree...@chello.nl sent:
Jon Alen,
This comment probably does not come as a surprise.CSP: The Eventual
Interpretant of [a] Sign is all that General Truth that it destines,
in view of the other general truths of the universe, conditionally
upon its full acceptance. It is the sum and substance of all the real
difference that its acceptance will make. ... Any Eventual
Interpretant must be of the nature of a Habit or Law. (RS 46:6-7, c.
1906) CSP: …and there is the Normal Interpretant, which is the
true Interpretand, which the sign ought to produce. Its true value.
Take, for example, a witness in court. ... The Normal Interpretant is
the modification of the verdict of the jury in which this testimony
ought logically to result. (R 499(s):2-4, c. 1906)
I read these quotes as indicating two concepts, as the terms choosen
already suggest, i.e. 'eventual' and 'normal'. The normal is judged by
the truth value: is the interpretant the effect the sign (sic) ought
to produce. It is an understanding of the import of this sign. It is
restricted to the interpretation prosesses goals at hand.
The eventual is not thus restricted: all general truth that it
destines, in view of other general truths of the universe. It is the
sum and substance of all the real difference that its acceptance will
make, it must be a habit. It is what the normal interpretant of my
former alinea might mean in other processes too. This difference can
be looked at as a difference between an involved dicent aspect (of
the normal i) of the sign and a rheme aspect (involved in eventual
i,), the latter enabling its to involvement in other processes. The
lines of identity that connect the processes (involved index element
of legisigns and immediate interpretants that of themself act as a
sign alike guaranty the possibility of this to actually happen).
On the terminological side I regard Peirce as a ballerina that is
able to make the finest and clearest distinctions between closely
related gestures. He is not the butcher that only knows to make
minced meat. He looks at each joint from all relevant (semiotically)
perspectives and describes what you find if you cut from those
perspectives.
Closely related to this issue is the interpretation of 'dynamical
interpretant'. I found passage's in Logical notebooks:
The dynamical interpretant is the determination of a field of
representation
exterior to the sign. This eld is an interpreter's consciousness
which
determination is a ected by the sign (MS 339, 253r, October 8,
1905).
The dynamical interpretant is just what is drawn from the sign by a
given individual interpreter, [. . . ] (MS 339, 276r, April 2,
1906).
I also found another shade of meaning in the first sentence below:
The commanded act in the mere doing of it as in uenced by the
command
is the dynamical interpretant. (DIR; AvB) But insofar as that
conduct
involves the recognition of the command and is obedient to it and
recognizes
this correctly, it is the representative interpretant (MS 339, 253r,
October 9, 1905).
1. Note that the normal interpretant, is calles here the
representative. not without reason because with normal Peirce looks
at it from a truth functional perspective and with normal from a
representative.
2. More improtant, you will notice the difference between:
A.
The dynamical interpretant as 'the determination of a field of
consciousness' (The immediate interpretant/rheme got its index and
became propositional for this interpreter. But still needed the
representative content to enter the argument, being put under the
general rule of inference (representational interpretant) and judged
on its truth value (normal i). It indicates a moment in a process of
interpretation.
and B.
Dynamical interpretant as "The commanded act in the mere doing of
it." In this case A must be fullfiled for B to happen. In A we are
speaking in terms of sign aspects about the dynamical interpretant.
In B it is a sign type, and it is the intended signtype in this
argument (process) if communication is succesful.
I suggested a distinction between 'dynamical interpretant'
(aspectual) and 'dynamical interpretant response' (typical) for
disambiguation pusposes.
Best regards,
Auke van BreemenOp 17 april 2020 om 3:20 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt :
Edwina, List:
It should go without saying for all my posts, but the following is
an expression of my personal opinions based on my interpretations of
Peirce's writings.
I always include the year of publication or composition whenever I
cite them, because I believe that it is very important to pay
attention to the development of Peirce's thought over time. CP
6.57-65 is from "The Doctrine of Necessity Examined," which appeared
in The Monist in 1892, so it is highly tenuous (at best) to base the
definition of the final interpretant on that passage dating more than
a decade before he ever began distinguishing a sign's three different
interpretants--initially calling this one "its interpretant in
itself" (CP 8.333, 1904) and "its signified interpretant" (CP 8.337,
1904). Besides, a quick perusal of the online [1] Commens
Dictionary is all that it takes to see most of his own explicit
definitions of the final interpretant, as well as its "near
synonyms"--eventual interpretant, rational interpretant, and normal
interpretant. Here they are, along with a couple of other relevant
excerpts.
CSP: … when we speak of the interpretant of a sign, we may mean
the rational interpretant which fairly and justly interprets it ...
(R 284:59-60[54-55], 1905)
CSP: The Eventual Interpretant of [a] Sign is all that General
Truth that it destines, in view of the other general truths of the
universe, conditionally upon its full acceptance. It is the sum and
substance of all the real difference that its acceptance will make.
... Any Eventual Interpretant must be of the nature of a Habit or
Law. (RS 46:6-7, c. 1906)
CSP: …and there is the Normal Interpretant, which is the true
Interpretand, which the sign ought to produce. Its true value. Take,
for example, a witness in court. ... The Normal Interpretant is the
modification of the verdict of the jury in which this testimony ought
logically to result. (R 499(s):2-4, c. 1906)
CSP: Finally there is what I provisionally term the Final
Interpretant, which refers to the manner in which the Sign tends to
represent itself to be related to its Object. I confess that my own
conception of this third interpretant is not yet quite free from
mist. (CP 4.536, 1906)
CSP: ... the Normal Interpretant, or effect that would be produced
on the mind by the Sign after sufficient development of thought.
...The ten respects according to which the chief divisions of signs
are determined are as follows: ... 8th, according to the Nature of
the Normal Interpretant ... (CP 8.343-344, EP 2:482-483, 1908)
CSP: VIII. According to the Purpose of the Eventual Interpretant:
Gratific; To produce action; To produce self-control. (CP 8.372, EP
2:490, 1908)
CSP: But we must also note that there is certainly a third kind of
Interpretant, which I call the Final Interpretant, because it is that
which would finally be decided to be the true interpretation if
consideration of the matter were carried so far that an ultimate
opinion were reached. (EP 2:496, 1909)
CSP: But the Significance of it, the Ultimate, or Final,
Interpretant is her purpose in asking it, what effect its answer will
have as to her plans for the ensuing day ... The Final Interpretant is
the sum of the Lessons of the reply, Moral, Scientific, etc. (CP
8.314, EP 2:498, 1909)
CSP: The Final Interpretant does not consist in the way in which
any mind does act but in the way in which every mind would act. That
is, it consists in a truth which might be expressed in a conditional
proposition of this type: “If so and so were to happen to any mind
this sign would determine that mind to such and such conduct.” (CP
8.315, EP 2:499, 1909)
CSP: My Final Interpretant is, I believe, exactly the same as your
Significance; namely, the effect the Sign would produce upon any mind
upon which the circumstances should permit it to work out its full
effect. ...... the Final Interpretant is the one Interpretative
result to which every Interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is
sufficiently considered. ... The Final Interpretant is that toward
which the actual tends. (SS 110-111, 1909)
CSP: The third sense in which we may properly speak of the
Interpretant is that in which I speak of the Final Interpretant
meaning that Habit in the production of which the function of the
Sign, as such, is exhausted. (ILS 285, 1910)
Taking all these into account, and giving more weight to the later
texts as presumably reflecting Peirce's more considered
views--perhaps largely "free from mist" by then--I still maintain
that the final interpretant is whatever a sign necessarily would
signify under ideal conditions; i.e., in the ultimate opinion after
infinite inquiry by an infinite community.
Notice that the logical interpretant, which Peirce discusses in
various drafts of "Pragmatism" (1907), is not considered a "near
synonym" of the final interpretant. Although some scholars have
suggested that the emotional/energetic/logical interpretants are
different names for the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants, I
believe that this is untenable because every sign has a final
interpretant, while "it is not all signs that have logical
interpretants, but only intellectual concepts and the like" (CP
5.482, EP 2:410); i.e., symbolic signs. Moreover, Peirce himself
explicitly distinguishes between a logical interpretant and the
ultimate or final logical interpretant.
CSP: ... I will call it the logical interpretant, without as yet
determining whether this term shall extend to anything beside the
meaning of a general concept, though certainly closely related to
that, or not. Shall we say that this effect may be a thought, that is
to say, a mental sign? No doubt, it may be so; only, if this sign be
of an intellectual kind--as it would have to be--it must itself have
a logical interpretant; so that it cannot be the ultimate logical
interpretant of the concept. It can be proved that the only mental
effect that can be so produced and that is not a sign but is of a
general application is a habit-change; meaning by a habit-change a
modification of a person's tendencies toward action, resulting from
previous experiences or from previous exertions of his will or acts,
or from a complexus of both kinds of cause. (CP 5.476)
CSP: I do not deny that a concept, proposition, or argument may be
a logical interpretant. I only insist that it cannot be the final
logical interpretant, for the reason that it is itself a sign of that
very kind that has itself a logical interpretant. The habit alone,
though it may be a sign in some other way, is not a sign in that way
in which the sign of which it is the logical interpretant is a sign.
... The deliberately formed, self-analyzing habit,--self-analyzing
because formed by the aid of analysis of the exercises that nourished
it,--is the living definition, the veritable and final logical
interpretant. (EP 2:418)
When a logical interpretant is a mental sign--a thought, a concept,
a proposition, or an argument--it is a dynamical interpretant, the
actual effect of another sign. A logical interpretant is only a
final interpretant when it is a habit or a habit-change;
specifically, I have suggested that it is a habit of feeling
(association) for a term/seme, a habit of conduct (a belief) for a
proposition/pheme, and a habit-change (an event of persuasion) for an
argument/delome.
In summary, the final interpretant is not itself a process, but
rather the telos of the continuous process of semeiosis, the final
cause toward which it tends in the long run. As for whether it is
proper to attribute the notion of perfection to it, I will once again
let Peirce speak for himself.
CSP: The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and by being
joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to
determining an interpretant which would be the perfect Truth, the
absolute Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language)
would be the very Universe. Aristotle gropes for a conception of
perfection, or entelechy, which he never succeeds in making clear.
We may adopt the word to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign
which should be quite perfect, and so identical,--in such identity as
a sign may have,--with the very matter denoted united with the very
form signified by it. The entelechy of the Universe of being, then,
the Universe qua fact, will be that Universe in its aspect as a sign,
the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the fact that is not abstracted but
complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign. (EP 2:304,
1904, bold added)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:59 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[4]> wrote:
Auke- I have a different view of the Final Interpretant - I see it
as a means of 'changing habits'.
My view of the Final Interpretant is that it is a continuous and
infinite process of generalization, vital to the formation of habits.
That is, the Logical or Final or Destinate Interpretant [the name
isn't relevant] is an integral component of the universe's growth and
increasing complexity. ["Everywhere the main fact is growth and
increasing complexity" 6.58....and "I, for my part, think that the
diversification, the specification, has been continually taking
place" 6.57. And "there is probably in nature some agency by which
the complexity and diversity of things can be increased" 6.58.
What is this 'agency'? It's both 'pure spontaneity' or Firstness
[6.59] AND - how does this spontaneity move into the actualities of
Secondness? By means of habit formation. By means of Thirdness. "I
make use of chance chiefly to make room for a principle of
generalization, or tendency to form habits, which I hold has produced
all regularities'. 6.63. See also 6.64 and 6.65...the 'phenomen of
growth and developing complexity which appears to be universal'.
That is, the semiosic process is one that is constantly enabling and
increasing both the diversity and complexity of life. Mind enables
Matter to become more diverse and complex. To enable this - semiosis
does not just focus on the particular individual act of experience of
an external object and the interpretation of that external object.
Such a confinement of the world to Secondness would deny the
realities of Types, of continuity and common adaptation and growth
Semiosis also focuses on enhancing and expanding the depth and
breadth, the complexity, of the development of habits, the knowledge
base/Thirdness that is used within the process of the triadic
semiosis.
It achieves this enhancement/expansion of habits, of generalization
- by means of the Final Interpretant, which is a process of constant
generalization of the informational results of the previous
Interpretants [the II and DI]. And this information comes from many
sites. I think it's important that the 'input' to the FI comes from
many sites.
- "the logical interpretant should in all cases be a conditional
future" . The Interpretants are, after all 'a modification of
consciousness' 5.485. What is the nature of a conditional future?
- 'those signs that have a logical interpretant are either generals
or closely connected with generals" 5.488. See also 5.482 for this
focus on the Logical/Final Interpretant as a general and in the
'conditional mood' of 'would be.
- "the interpretant is a modifier of consciousness" 5.485
-"the whole function of thought is to produce habits of action'
5.400; 6.262
- this 'logical interpretant' has the function of a 'habit-change'
[see 5.476
The works of Peirce are filled with these analyses - too many to
quote here.
That is - my understanding of the Final Interpretant is that its
role is to develop and change habits, relevant to the actual world
[of Secondness] and yet capable of the obvious expansion of diversity
and complexity in life. In the biological realm, what we see is that
the Final Interpretant accepts information/data from many individual
agents; it generalizes this data; and then, this generalization
becomes dominant and acts to change the species habits stored within
Thirdness such that, a bird develops a new beak; a moth develops
different coloured wings..and so on.
The Final Interpretant is not 'often' used; most of life operates
within Firstness/Secondness - and a stable Thirdness. But, the Final
Interpretant is, I feel, the key to how we change habits.
The Final Interpretant is a means of enabling the infinite evolution
of the world's diversity and complexity. It collects data from
multiple sites - generalizes them, and this new 'habit' becomes
dominant and changes the habits-of-formation of a species.
With regard to your example of the changes in style in the life of
an artist - I'd say the process is similar, where the artist develops
a 'normative style of his art'..and then, by means of interaction with
others, with experience etc...comes to a Final Interpretant phase,
where he changes his 'normative style of art'.
Notice that my view of the Final Interpretant is an evolutionary
one; there is no notion of a final Perfection, but instead, a concept
of infinite capacity, via input data from multiple sites, plus the
action of generalization.. to change the habits of a Type.
Edwina
-----------------------------
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 [5] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/final-interpretant
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
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 .
