Bernard, List: BM: I just realize that in English, eventual can be understood as "which results, follow". I think that would make it more close to normal than final.
In English, "eventual" describes something that is expected to happen *later *(in the future), not something that *usually *happens (in the present). Peirce did not prepare that particular *Century Dictionary* entry, but it still reflects how the word was typically being employed by Americans during his lifetime ( http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=03&page=263 ). *eventual*, *a*. *1*. Pertaining to the event or issue; happening or to happen or exist finally; ultimate: as, his *eventual *success was unexpected. *2*. Contingent upon a future or as yet unknown event; depending upon an uncertain event that may happen or come about: as, an *eventual *succession. *Syn*. *1*. *Ultimate*, *Conclusive*, etc. See *final*. Again, "eventual" thus seems closer to "final" than "normal." Moreover, in addition to the Logic Notebook quotation that I provided previously, Peirce describes the normal interpretant in *normative *terms as "the true Interpretand, which the sign *ought *to produce" (R 499(s):3, c. 1906), and the "effect that would be produced on the mind by the Sign after sufficient development of thought" (CP 8.343, EP 2:482, 1908). Hence, although there are likely good reasons to incorporate "the usual interpretant" into a theory of interpretation, it is not what Peirce calls "the normal interpretant" in his speculative grammar. BM: I also note that the title of the 10th division makes the interpreter the one who is responsible for the assurance. How so? It is a division "according to the Nature of the Assurance *afforded *the Interpreter" (emphasis added), i.e., the assurance *supplied *to the interpreter by the sign itself, which is why Peirce later calls it "the Nature of the Assurance of the Utterance" (EP 2:490, 1908). Regardless, I find it highly implausible that Peirce assigned the names abducent/inducent/deducent to this trichotomy *without *having abductive/inductive/deductive arguments in mind, although I am not suggesting that *only *arguments can be classified with this trichotomy. On the contrary, in my proposed taxonomy, a proposition/dicisign/pheme can be an inducent or an abducent, and a term/rheme/seme is always an abducent. BM: As to the word "purpose" that may have mislead some people, it does no more relate to final (as in final interpretant) but to the goal, for example the goal of the sign is to determine its interpretant. Peirce consistently associates "purpose" with the division of signs according to the eventual or normal interpretant, which is another reason why I view the latter as equivalent to the *final *interpretant in the sense of a *final cause*--the *ultimate *goal of the sign, the effect that it *would *produce under ideal circumstances. Hence, a gratific is a sign whose eventual/normal/final interpretant's *purpose *is to produce feeling, an actuous is a sign whose eventual/normal/final interpretant's *purpose *is to produce action, and a temperative is a sign whose eventual/normal/final interpretant's *purpose *is to produce self-control. In my proposed taxonomy, a gratific is always a sympathetic, an actuous can be a percussive or a sympathetic, and a temperative can be a usual, a percussive, or a sympathetic. This entails that a gratific *only *produces a feeling as its dynamical interpretant, an actuous *ought *to produce an exertion as its dynamical interpretant but *can *produce a mere feeling instead, and a temperative *ought *to produce a further sign as its dynamical interpretant but *can* produce a mere exertion or feeling instead. In other words, whenever the *actual* effect of a sign deviates from its *normative *effect, it does so as a manifestation of *degeneracy--*from 2ns to 1ns, or from 3ns to 2ns or 1ns. BM: There is not any "young" Peirce nor a "mature" one, at least in my understanding of his works. I agree from the standpoint that scholars should generally seek to reconcile Peirce's writings about the same subject at different times, even where they initially appear to conflict with each other. However, there is no question that his thought developed considerably over the decades of his life, which is why I believe that it is a good practice to give the year of publication or composition when citing or quoting him. In some cases, he clearly changed his mind, such as adding the positive science of phenomenology/phaneroscopy to his classification and placing it (along with esthetics and ethics) between the hypothetical science of mathematics and the normative science of logic. Speaking of phaneroscopy ... BM: Not doing so will lead to render phaneroscopy a simple paraphrase of semiotic, ending into some kind of tautology between them. This is from the post last week that prompted me to change the subject line (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-11/msg00066.html). I still do not see how my proposed order of the last six trichotomies for sign classification in speculative grammar could somehow reduce phaneroscopy and semeiotic to the same field of study, or otherwise inhibit the development of a comprehensive theory of interpretation in speculative rhetoric. It seems to me that this would *only *be a danger if I were requiring all dynamical interpretants to be further signs (3ns), but as outlined above, my approach fully recognizes that they can be and often are exertions (2ns) or feelings (1ns) instead. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:26 AM Bernard Morand <morand.bern...@neuf.fr> wrote: > Jon, List > Le 15/11/2021 à 01:09, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit : > > Thank you very much for the detailed quoting. > > "Normal" is indeed absent but its place is taken by "Eventual". I just > realize that in English, eventual can be understood as "which results, > follow". I think that would make it more close to normal than final. > > I also note that the title of the 10th division makes the interpreter the > one who is responsible for the assurance. The apparition of the interpreter > is one more indice that we are in another world than the previous analytic > world of the 10 classes. > > This observation lead me to place the 10th division in the middle of the > table, just after the Sign and objects and before the interpretants. The > order of the following interpretant divisions moves toward the immediate > interpretant, in a "deconstructive" and time ordered path. I am aware of > the idiosyncrasic character of this, but it seems to me that the logical > determinations of the items work fine. > > As to the word "purpose" that may have mislead some people, it does no > more relate to final (as in final interpretant) but to the goal, for > example the goal of the sign is to determine its interpretant. > > JAS: My proposed order is for the last six of the ten trichotomies, which > together result in 66 classes of signs. Where I think we agree is that this > whole approach of classifying "individual" *signs *is less important than > studying the continuous process of *semiosis*. However, I believe that a > theory of interpretation--concerned with the relations of signs to their > interpretants--falls primarily within speculative *rhetoric *as the third > branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic, rather than > speculative *grammar *as its first branch. In between comes the second > branch, logical critic, which is concerned with the relations of signs to > their objects. > > I doubt the order you are proposing but I strongly agree with the rest of > the paragraph. Speculative grammar, critical logic, speculative rhetoric > are distinctions from Peirce beginnings but yes they remain alive in 1906 > and further, sometimes under new names and approaches. There is not any > "young" Peirce nor a "mature" one, at least in my understanding of his > works. > > Regards > > Bernard >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
