Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosis and Truth
Supplement: But I have understood, that this is the categorial sequence order, and the determination order is different, and starts wit Od.
Robert,
I am not a Peirce-expert. I have thought to have understood, that it is (3.3.), thirdness of thirdness, and the same as normal interpretant. The hexadic sign is {(1.), (2.1.), (2.2.), (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.)}, or (S, Oi, Od, Ii, Id, If), is it? If what I wrote is correct, I find it amazing, that the If´s function and determinational action is *merely* to confirm, that the object is, like all objects, identical with itself, and not identical with any other object. Something like the Pauli-Principle, a sort of basic axiom, that is part of common sense.
Best,
Helmut
19. Mai 2020 um 21:08 Uhr
"robert marty"
wrote:
Helmut,
you are very close to what I say... however, I would like to know where you place this final interpretant in the hexadic sign...
Best
Robert
Le mar. 19 mai 2020 à 17:08, Helmut Raulien a écrit :
Edwina, List,
I think, that "final" in "final interpretant" is not meant like "in the future" or predestined, but just, that to everything could exist a unique, unambiguous representation of its momentary state and being. If a thing is blurred or ambiguous, this vagueness or ambiguity would be exactly and unambiguously represented by this final interpretant. Though the FI as a correlate is different from all other FIs, the sign´s correlation with it is always the same: It just is regarding any object as identical, unique, non-exchangeable, non-alternative. That is, taking it seriously. This is a very trivial relation, which is the basis for all relations and all communication. I think that atoms, organisms, people, have all internalized it, with only one exception, that is the president of the US, who claims being able to construe alternative facts.
Best,
Helmut
19. Mai 2020 um 14:09 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of a 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a 'final truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda is the 'nature of Peircean semiosis'.
Whether one assumes that truth is a fact or an ideal - both assumptions include the view that 'truth' exists about this 'thing'. Now, in some instances of semiosis, we can indeed accept that there is a truth vs a non-truth. For example, in the identity of a poison; in the factual nature of an historical event.
But surely this is not definitive of the full nature of Peircean semiosis. Did he spend all his years and work merely writing that 'if you or a group work hard enough - you'll find out the truth of whether X is a poison or the truth of what happened'
This notion of an almost predestined reality of a 'thing'. which can never change...seems to me to function only within pure Thirdness. It ignores the brute accidents and changes of Secondness and totally ignores the chance novelties introduced by Firstness. That is, it ignores evolution and adaptation and novelty.
I consider that - apart from these factual situations of 'either-or' [is it a poison or not; did this event occur or not] ….that Peircean semiosis rejects a predestined Truth. Indeed, with the power of Secondness and Firstness - Peircean semiosis rejects predestination of any kind and sets up the world as complex, interactive, dynamic and open to pure novelty, There is no 'final truth'.
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 .
- 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 .
-
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 .
Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosis and Truth
Robert,
I am not a Peirce-expert. I have thought to have understood, that it is (3.3.), thirdness of thirdness, and the same as normal interpretant. The hexadic sign is {(1.), (2.1.), (2.2.), (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.)}, or (S, Oi, Od, Ii, Id, If), is it? If what I wrote is correct, I find it amazing, that the If´s function and determinational action is *merely* to confirm, that the object is, like all objects, identical with itself, and not identical with any other object. Something like the Pauli-Principle, a sort of basic axiom, that is part of common sense.
Best,
Helmut
19. Mai 2020 um 21:08 Uhr
"robert marty"
wrote:
Helmut,
you are very close to what I say... however, I would like to know where you place this final interpretant in the hexadic sign...
Best
Robert
Le mar. 19 mai 2020 à 17:08, Helmut Raulien a écrit :
Edwina, List,
I think, that "final" in "final interpretant" is not meant like "in the future" or predestined, but just, that to everything could exist a unique, unambiguous representation of its momentary state and being. If a thing is blurred or ambiguous, this vagueness or ambiguity would be exactly and unambiguously represented by this final interpretant. Though the FI as a correlate is different from all other FIs, the sign´s correlation with it is always the same: It just is regarding any object as identical, unique, non-exchangeable, non-alternative. That is, taking it seriously. This is a very trivial relation, which is the basis for all relations and all communication. I think that atoms, organisms, people, have all internalized it, with only one exception, that is the president of the US, who claims being able to construe alternative facts.
Best,
Helmut
19. Mai 2020 um 14:09 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of a 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a 'final truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda is the 'nature of Peircean semiosis'.
Whether one assumes that truth is a fact or an ideal - both assumptions include the view that 'truth' exists about this 'thing'. Now, in some instances of semiosis, we can indeed accept that there is a truth vs a non-truth. For example, in the identity of a poison; in the factual nature of an historical event.
But surely this is not definitive of the full nature of Peircean semiosis. Did he spend all his years and work merely writing that 'if you or a group work hard enough - you'll find out the truth of whether X is a poison or the truth of what happened'
This notion of an almost predestined reality of a 'thing'. which can never change...seems to me to function only within pure Thirdness. It ignores the brute accidents and changes of Secondness and totally ignores the chance novelties introduced by Firstness. That is, it ignores evolution and adaptation and novelty.
I consider that - apart from these factual situations of 'either-or' [is it a poison or not; did this event occur or not] ….that Peircean semiosis rejects a predestined Truth. Indeed, with the power of Secondness and Firstness - Peircean semiosis rejects predestination of any kind and sets up the world as complex, interactive, dynamic and open to pure novelty, There is no 'final truth'.
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 .
-
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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosis and Truth
Helmut, you are very close to what I say... however, I would like to know where you place this final interpretant in the hexadic sign... Best Robert Le mar. 19 mai 2020 à 17:08, Helmut Raulien a écrit : > Edwina, List, > > I think, that "final" in "final interpretant" is not meant like "in the > future" or predestined, but just, that to everything could exist a unique, > unambiguous representation of its momentary state and being. If a thing is > blurred or ambiguous, this vagueness or ambiguity would be exactly and > unambiguously represented by this final interpretant. Though the FI as a > correlate is different from all other FIs, the sign´s correlation with it > is always the same: It just is regarding any object as identical, unique, > non-exchangeable, non-alternative. That is, taking it seriously. This is a > very trivial relation, which is the basis for all relations and all > communication. I think that atoms, organisms, people, have all internalized > it, with only one exception, that is the president of the US, who claims > being able to construe alternative facts. > > Best, > Helmut > > > 19. Mai 2020 um 14:09 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" > *wrote:* > > Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of a > 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a 'final > truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda is the > 'nature of Peircean semiosis'. > > Whether one assumes that truth is a fact or an ideal - both assumptions > include the view that 'truth' exists about this 'thing'. Now, in some > instances of semiosis, we can indeed accept that there is a truth vs a > non-truth. For example, in the identity of a poison; in the factual nature > of an historical event. > > But surely this is not definitive of the full nature of Peircean semiosis. > Did he spend all his years and work merely writing that 'if you or a group > work hard enough - you'll find out the truth of whether X is a poison or > the truth of what happened' > > This notion of an almost predestined reality of a 'thing'. which can never > change...seems to me to function only within pure Thirdness. It ignores > the brute accidents and changes of Secondness and totally ignores the > chance novelties introduced by Firstness. That is, it ignores evolution and > adaptation and novelty. > > I consider that - apart from these factual situations of 'either-or' [is > it a poison or not; did this event occur or not] ….that Peircean semiosis > rejects a predestined Truth. Indeed, with the power of Secondness and > Firstness - Peircean semiosis rejects predestination of any kind and sets > up the world as complex, interactive, dynamic and open to pure novelty, > There is no 'final truth'. > > 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 . > - 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 .
Re: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosis and Truth
Helmut, list 1] I will not get into any political commentary on this list. 2] If we can stick to Peirce - the phrase of 'in the future' is definitely NOT a synonym for 'predestined'. And Peirce's outline of the Final Interpretant is '"that which would be finally 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 "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 8.315; 1909 "My Final Interpretant is […] the effect the Sign would produce upon any mind upon which the circumstances should permit it to work out its full effect'SS 110-1.1909 "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" 1910. ILS 285 There are two areas in which the 'Final Interpretant' is operative in the above quotations. One is that among human communicators who are examining a 'thing' and desiring to understand its true identity 'in itself'. As such - there is indeed a 'final opinion' , a true interpretation of what A-person said or wrote. The focus is not on any single person achieving this 'final truth' but that all [or almost all] of the population would reach that same conclusion. Is this predestination? In a way! If one considers that there is only ONE truth about whether X is a poison [to humans but not to lizards]...one can say that this 'truth' exists 'per se' but it is certainly not predetermined that we humans will ever arrive at such knowledge. But again - my point is that Peirce's massive work over many years is not merely about human communication. That- to me, is not what semiosis is about. Notice his 1910 definition - which doesn't refer to A-person talking to B-person, but refers to HABITS, ie, the laws as generated within the actions of semiosis. Here, Peirce defines the Final Interpretant to mean that these laws, these habits have become 'solidified' and no longer open to adaptation and change - and produces not only the same result, that Final Interpretant; but even, possibly, can no longer function as an interpretant and the triad collapses. Therefore - to me, semiosis is an open, adaptive, generative process and to speak of this hexagram only with reference to an interaction between A-person and B-person trying to understand each other - is a reference to only a minor aspect. Edwina On Tue 19/05/20 11:08 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, List, I think, that "final" in "final interpretant" is not meant like "in the future" or predestined, but just, that to everything could exist a unique, unambiguous representation of its momentary state and being. If a thing is blurred or ambiguous, this vagueness or ambiguity would be exactly and unambiguously represented by this final interpretant. Though the FI as a correlate is different from all other FIs, the sign´s correlation with it is always the same: It just is regarding any object as identical, unique, non-exchangeable, non-alternative. That is, taking it seriously. This is a very trivial relation, which is the basis for all relations and all communication. I think that atoms, organisms, people, have all internalized it, with only one exception, that is the president of the US, who claims being able to construe alternative facts. Best, Helmut 19. Mai 2020 um 14:09 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of a 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a 'final truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda is the 'nature of Peircean semiosis'. Whether one assumes that truth is a fact or an ideal - both assumptions include the view that 'truth' exists about this 'thing'. Now, in some instances of semiosis, we can indeed accept that there is a truth vs a non-truth. For example, in the identity of a poison; in the factual nature of an historical event. But surely this is not definitive of the full nature of Peircean semiosis. Did he spend all his years and work merely writing that 'if you or a group work hard enough - you'll find out the truth of whether X is a poison or the truth of what happened' This notion of an almost predestined reality of a 'thing'. which can never change...seems to me to function only within pure Thirdness. It ignores the brute accidents and changes of Secondness and totally ignores the chance novelties introduced by Firstness. That is, it ignores evolution and adaptation and novelty. I consider that - apart from these factual situations of 'either-or' [is it a poison or not; did this event occur or not] ….that Peircean semiosis rejects
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosis and Truth
Edwina, List, I think, that "final" in "final interpretant" is not meant like "in the future" or predestined, but just, that to everything could exist a unique, unambiguous representation of its momentary state and being. If a thing is blurred or ambiguous, this vagueness or ambiguity would be exactly and unambiguously represented by this final interpretant. Though the FI as a correlate is different from all other FIs, the sign´s correlation with it is always the same: It just is regarding any object as identical, unique, non-exchangeable, non-alternative. That is, taking it seriously. This is a very trivial relation, which is the basis for all relations and all communication. I think that atoms, organisms, people, have all internalized it, with only one exception, that is the president of the US, who claims being able to construe alternative facts. Best, Helmut 19. Mai 2020 um 14:09 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of a 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a 'final truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda is the 'nature of Peircean semiosis'. Whether one assumes that truth is a fact or an ideal - both assumptions include the view that 'truth' exists about this 'thing'. Now, in some instances of semiosis, we can indeed accept that there is a truth vs a non-truth. For example, in the identity of a poison; in the factual nature of an historical event. But surely this is not definitive of the full nature of Peircean semiosis. Did he spend all his years and work merely writing that 'if you or a group work hard enough - you'll find out the truth of whether X is a poison or the truth of what happened' This notion of an almost predestined reality of a 'thing'. which can never change...seems to me to function only within pure Thirdness. It ignores the brute accidents and changes of Secondness and totally ignores the chance novelties introduced by Firstness. That is, it ignores evolution and adaptation and novelty. I consider that - apart from these factual situations of 'either-or' [is it a poison or not; did this event occur or not] ….that Peircean semiosis rejects a predestined Truth. Indeed, with the power of Secondness and Firstness - Peircean semiosis rejects predestination of any kind and sets up the world as complex, interactive, dynamic and open to pure novelty, There is no 'final truth'. 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 . - 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 .
[PEIRCE-L] Semiosis and Truth
Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of a 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a 'final truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda is the 'nature of Peircean semiosis'. Whether one assumes that truth is a fact or an ideal - both assumptions include the view that 'truth' exists about this 'thing'. Now, in some instances of semiosis, we can indeed accept that there is a truth vs a non-truth. For example, in the identity of a poison; in the factual nature of an historical event. But surely this is not definitive of the full nature of Peircean semiosis. Did he spend all his years and work merely writing that 'if you or a group work hard enough - you'll find out the truth of whether X is a poison or the truth of what happened' This notion of an almost predestined reality of a 'thing'. which can never change...seems to me to function only within pure Thirdness. It ignores the brute accidents and changes of Secondness and totally ignores the chance novelties introduced by Firstness. That is, it ignores evolution and adaptation and novelty. I consider that - apart from these factual situations of 'either-or' [is it a poison or not; did this event occur or not] ….that Peircean semiosis rejects a predestined Truth. Indeed, with the power of Secondness and Firstness - Peircean semiosis rejects predestination of any kind and sets up the world as complex, interactive, dynamic and open to pure novelty, There is no 'final truth'. 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 .
