> On Aug 30, 2016, at 10:37 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree, and likewise the Dynamic Interpretant determines the Final > Interpretant in the sense that it constrains the possible habits resulting > from its repetition; at least, that is my hypothesis at the moment
I think that was Peirce’s view. At least it sure reads that way. I confess this is a place that I don’t think it works. Peirce wants to introduce an element of chance but by its very nature chance can go beyond. What Peirce wants to argue is that ultimately a kind of convergence at infinity happens. Yet of course not all equations converge in that way. By way of analogy I’d think that would entail some dynamic interpretants with unstable habits never become final interpretants. I don’t think that a problem ultimately for Peirce’s semiotics. It just means that some things won’t become true. But it seems to me that Peirce did imagine the semiotic equivalent of the heat death of the universe where everything becomes habitual. I just can’t quite see how he can reconcile that to the place of chance in his thought. But maybe I’m missing something obvious in Peirce’s arguments.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
