Jack, the pragmatic use of the final interpretant is that it serves as an ideal for each author and each reader to aim at: the Truth of the matter. It is not merely the last dynamic interpretant in the series; it is more like a mathematical limit, or like the final cause of a process, to use the Aristotelian term.
Think of the dialogue between writers and readers as a single continuous semiosic process. It differs from a real-time, in-person dialogue because there are long time gaps (and cultural gaps) between author and reader. The semiosic process has to bridge these gaps somehow; otherwise its continuity is lost. Even an in-person dialogue will break down if one of the partners does not trust the other to be aiming at the truth of the matter, and thinks that his utterances are otherwise motivated. If we start with a text uttered by Peirce in, say, 1903, we trust that what he "had in mind" (i.e. the content of the text) was a sign purporting to think something true about some subject matter, which is the object of that sign. And we must presume that the text is another sign of the same object. The explicit text was presumably co-determined by (1) the dynamic object which was part of a context external to Peirce and (2) the context into which his perception of the object came, the context constituted by his habits of thought at the time, coupled with his intention to speak the truth about the object. In order to approach a final interpretant of it - the truth which is independent of any individual interpreter - each dynamic interpretant of that text-sign in the chain (or rather network) following it (both temporally and logically) must be another sign of the same dynamic object. "Objectivity" is simply the interpreter's habit of keeping his attention on that object, even though the text gives him only a "hint" (the immediate object) of what it is. Of course the dynamic interpretant is co-determined by the internal context of the interpreter, just as the original text was co-determined by the author's habits and intentions. All interpretations are fallible. But if the reader does not share the author's attention to the dynamic object, so that it is a focal point in the commens which author and reader share, then that object is remote from the determination of the dynamic interpretant, and the interpreter is left with nothing to go on except the reaction to the text determined by his own habits and intuitions. This is what we call a "subjective" reading. Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On Behalf Of JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY Sent: 23-Oct-21 19:36 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts Or, to put it another way if there were such an "objectivity" possible, students would not read Plato and Aristotle, they would read the logically "objective" meaning which we should, by now, have come to possess (which brings me back to final interpretant - two and half millennia is not enough to produce "objective" scholarly consensus, then what pragmatic use does the "final interpretant" actually have? Jack _____ From: JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie <mailto:jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 12:22 AM To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >; Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com <mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts This, in turn, leads to the error of denying that there is any such thing as an objectively correct (or objectively incorrect) reading of a text. In terms Gary Fuhrman recently used, this mistaken view has the internal context of the interpreter govern over the external context that is shared with the utterer. Gary, list, What is an objectively correct reading of a text? Wouldn't it merely be one which reproduced the text entirely without adding or removing anything to/from it? We can have objectively correct renderings of mathematical principles, but when we move to normative language, we would be lying to ourselves if we assumed we could always retrieve the author's intent within objectively scientific degrees of accuracy. Such is rarely (if ever) possible. The object is experienced subjectively, and the subject (re)produces the object from these conditions. There cannot be an absolutely "objective" reading of a text (especially regarding intent). If there is, I have yet to encounter it (and suspect only people who agree with each other in every respect have encountered such a thing). There are of course interpretations of texts which we think of as being better than others - but I'm not "sold" on the "final interpretant" of Peirce in a semeiotic system wherein all evolves continuously (what is final?). Best Jack _____ From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> > on behalf of Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com <mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 11:19 PM To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts *Warning* This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. List, To incorrectly, in my opinion, define 'representamen' as 'the mediative node' -- for example, as the 'function' that transforms 'input' into 'output' -- effectively assigns the role of mediating between the object and interpretant to the interpreter rather than to the sign. This, in turn, leads to the error of denying that there is any such thing as an objectively correct (or objectively incorrect) reading of a text. In terms Gary Fuhrman recently used, this mistaken view has the internal context of the interpreter govern over the external context that is shared with the utterer. If we abandon this ideal of objectivity -- which, of course, can never be perfectly or exactly realized -- we are left with nothing that serves as a standard for assessing actual interpretations. In the view of some on this List and off, this goal in the case of a written text is always properly discerning the author's intended meaning (intentional interpretant) as expressed in the text (immediate interpretant). For anyone who makes the interpreter the mediator, rather than the sign being that, there are only various individual readings, none of which is more or less valid than any other. Such a version of semiotics is not a normative science at all as It provides no basis for evaluating any particular reading as a better interpretation of a text, or even a misinterpretation of the text. And who would honestly deny that misinterpretations of texts do indeed occur? And who would seriously argue that any and every interpretation is as good as any other? Best, Gary R "Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final" ― Rainer Maria Rilke Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
