Auke, List: AvB: I read these quotes as indicating two concepts, as the terms choosen already suggest, i.e. 'eventual' and 'normal'.
Understood, but by contrast I read "eventual interpretant" and "normal interpretant" as two *tentative *terms (with *tentative *definitions) for the *same *concept, which were eventually superseded by "final interpretant." While the names vary over time, Peirce consistently maintains that there are *exactly three* interpretants, since this is required by his categorial analysis as Robert's podium diagram helpfully illustrates. AvB: I suggested a distinction between 'dynamical interpretant' (aspectual) and 'dynamical interpretant response' (typical) for disambiguation pusposes. Again, I do not read Peirce as defining two *different *"dynamical interpretants," but rather working out in his Logic Notebook some candidate ideas for defining *the *dynamical interpretant. In this case, a dynamical interpretant as "the determination of a field of consciousness" is a *logical *interpretant producing a *further sign* in the interpreter such that the sign itself is a *usual*, while a dynamical interpretant as "the commanded act in the mere doing of it" is an *energetic *interpretant producing an *effort* in the interpreter such that the sign itself is a *percussive*. AvB (in another thread): Semiotics must be developed by a study of signs and sign processes, not by speculations on particular concepts of god, not even Peirce's. I agree, and my point was not to say anything one way or the other about theism--only that Peirce considers the entire universe to be a *sign*, specifically an argument; and as such, like *every *sign, it necessarily has a final interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:11 AM <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > 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 Breemen >
----------------------------- 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 .
