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 > Op 17 april 2020 om 3:20 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>: > > Edwina, List: > > It should go without saying for all my posts, but the following is an > expression of my personal opinions based on my interpretations of Peirce's > writings. > > I always include the year of publication or composition whenever I cite > them, because I believe that it is very important to pay attention to the > development of Peirce's thought over time. CP 6.57-65 is from "The Doctrine > of Necessity Examined," which appeared in The Monist in 1892, so it is highly > tenuous (at best) to base the definition of the final interpretant on that > passage dating more than a decade before he ever began distinguishing a > sign's three different interpretants--initially calling this one "its > interpretant in itself" (CP 8.333, 1904) and "its signified interpretant" (CP > 8.337, 1904). Besides, a quick perusal of the online > http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/final-interpretant Commens Dictionary > is all that it takes to see most of his own explicit definitions of the final > interpretant, as well as its "near synonyms"--eventual interpretant, rational > interpretant, and normal interpretant. Here they are, along with a couple of > other relevant excerpts. > > > > > CSP: … when we speak of the interpretant of a sign, we > may mean the rational interpretant which fairly and justly interprets it ... > (R 284:59-60[54-55], 1905) > > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CSP: Finally there is what I provisionally term the > > > Final Interpretant, which refers to the manner in which the Sign tends to > > > represent itself to be related to its Object. I confess that my own > > > conception of this third interpretant is not yet quite free from mist. > > > (CP 4.536, 1906) > > > > > > > > > > CSP: ... the Normal Interpretant, or effect that would > be produced on the mind by the Sign after sufficient development of thought. > ... > > The ten respects according to which the chief divisions of signs > > are determined are as follows: ... 8th, according to the Nature of the > > Normal Interpretant ... (CP 8.343-344, EP 2:482-483, 1908) > > > > > > > > > > CSP: VIII. According to the Purpose of the Eventual > Interpretant: Gratific; To produce action; To produce self-control. (CP > 8.372, EP 2:490, 1908) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CSP: But we must also note that there is certainly a > third kind of Interpretant, which I call the Final Interpretant, because it > is that which would finally be 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) > > > > > > > > > > CSP: But the Significance of it, the Ultimate, or Final, > Interpretant is her purpose in asking it, what effect its answer will have as > to her plans for the ensuing day ... The Final Interpretant is the sum of the > Lessons of the reply, Moral, Scientific, etc. (CP 8.314, EP 2:498, 1909) > > > > > > > > > > CSP: 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. That > is, it consists in a truth which might be expressed in a conditional > proposition of this type: “If so and so were to happen to any mind this sign > would determine that mind to such and such conduct.” (CP 8.315, EP 2:499, > 1909) > > > > > > > > > > CSP: My Final Interpretant is, I believe, exactly the > same as your Significance; namely, the effect the Sign would produce upon any > mind upon which the circumstances should permit it to work out its full > effect. ... > > ... the Final Interpretant is the one Interpretative result to > > which every Interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is sufficiently > > considered. ... The Final Interpretant is that toward which the actual > > tends. (SS 110-111, 1909) > > > > > > > > > > CSP: 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. (ILS 285, 1910) > > > > > > Taking all these into account, and giving more weight to the later texts > as presumably reflecting Peirce's more considered views--perhaps largely > "free from mist" by then--I still maintain that the final interpretant is > whatever a sign necessarily would signify under ideal conditions; i.e., in > the ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. > > Notice that the logical interpretant, which Peirce discusses in various > drafts of "Pragmatism" (1907), is not considered a "near synonym" of the > final interpretant. Although some scholars have suggested that the > emotional/energetic/logical interpretants are different names for the > immediate/dynamical/final interpretants, I believe that this is untenable > because every sign has a final interpretant, while "it is not all signs that > have logical interpretants, but only intellectual concepts and the like" (CP > 5.482, EP 2:410); i.e., symbolic signs. Moreover, Peirce himself explicitly > distinguishes between a logical interpretant and the ultimate or final > logical interpretant. > > > > > CSP: ... I will call it the logical interpretant, > without as yet determining whether this term shall extend to anything beside > the meaning of a general concept, though certainly closely related to that, > or not. Shall we say that this effect may be a thought, that is to say, a > mental sign? No doubt, it may be so; only, if this sign be of an intellectual > kind--as it would have to be--it must itself have a logical interpretant; so > that it cannot be the ultimate logical interpretant of the concept. It can be > proved that the only mental effect that can be so produced and that is not a > sign but is of a general application is a habit-change; meaning by a > habit-change a modification of a person's tendencies toward action, resulting > from previous experiences or from previous exertions of his will or acts, or > from a complexus of both kinds of cause. (CP 5.476) > > > > > > > > > > CSP: I do not deny that a concept, proposition, or argument may be > > a logical interpretant. I only insist that it cannot be the final logical > > interpretant, for the reason that it is itself a sign of that very kind > > that has itself a logical interpretant. The habit alone, though it may be a > > sign in some other way, is not a sign in that way in which the sign of > > which it is the logical interpretant is a sign. ... The deliberately > > formed, self-analyzing habit,--self-analyzing because formed by the aid of > > analysis of the exercises that nourished it,--is the living definition, the > > veritable and final logical interpretant. (EP 2:418) > > > > > > When a logical interpretant is a mental sign--a thought, a concept, a > proposition, or an argument--it is a dynamical interpretant, the actual > effect of another sign. A logical interpretant is only a final interpretant > when it is a habit or a habit-change; specifically, I have suggested that it > is a habit of feeling (association) for a term/seme, a habit of conduct (a > belief) for a proposition/pheme, and a habit-change (an event of persuasion) > for an argument/delome. > > In summary, the final interpretant is not itself a process, but rather > the telos of the continuous process of semeiosis, the final cause toward > which it tends in the long run. As for whether it is proper to attribute the > notion of perfection to it, I will once again let Peirce speak for himself. > > > > > CSP: The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and > by being joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to > determining an interpretant which would be the perfect Truth, the absolute > Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very > Universe. Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection, or entelechy, > which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the > very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so > identical,--in such identity as a sign may have,--with the very matter > denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy of the > Universe of being, then, the Universe qua fact, will be that Universe in its > aspect as a sign, the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the fact that is not > abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign. (EP > 2:304, 1904, bold added) > > > > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:59 PM Edwina Taborsky < [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] > wrote: > > > > > > Auke- I have a different view of the Final Interpretant - I see it > > as a means of 'changing habits'. > > > > My view of the Final Interpretant is that it is a continuous and > > infinite process of generalization, vital to the formation of habits. That > > is, the Logical or Final or Destinate Interpretant [the name isn't > > relevant] is an integral component of the universe's growth and increasing > > complexity. ["Everywhere the main fact is growth and increasing complexity" > > 6.58....and "I, for my part, think that the diversification, the > > specification, has been continually taking place" 6.57. And "there is > > probably in nature some agency by which the complexity and diversity of > > things can be increased" 6.58. > > > > > > > > What is this 'agency'? It's both 'pure spontaneity' or Firstness > > [6.59] AND - how does this spontaneity move into the actualities of > > Secondness? By means of habit formation. By means of Thirdness. "I make use > > of chance chiefly to make room for a principle of generalization, or > > tendency to form habits, which I hold has produced all regularities'. 6.63. > > See also 6.64 and 6.65...the 'phenomen of growth and developing complexity > > which appears to be universal'. > > > > That is, the semiosic process is one that is constantly enabling > > and increasing both the diversity and complexity of life. Mind enables > > Matter to become more diverse and complex. To enable this - semiosis does > > not just focus on the particular individual act of experience of an > > external object and the interpretation of that external object. Such a > > confinement of the world to Secondness would deny the realities of Types, > > of continuity and common adaptation and growth Semiosis also focuses on > > enhancing and expanding the depth and breadth, the complexity, of the > > development of habits, the knowledge base/Thirdness that is used within the > > process of the triadic semiosis. > > > > It achieves this enhancement/expansion of habits, of generalization > > - by means of the Final Interpretant, which is a process of constant > > generalization of the informational results of the previous Interpretants > > [the II and DI]. And this information comes from many sites. I think it's > > important that the 'input' to the FI comes from many sites. > > > > - "the logical interpretant should in all cases be a conditional > > future" . The Interpretants are, after all 'a modification of > > consciousness' 5.485. What is the nature of a conditional future? > > > > - 'those signs that have a logical interpretant are either generals > > or closely connected with generals" 5.488. See also 5.482 for this focus on > > the Logical/Final Interpretant as a general and in the 'conditional mood' > > of 'would be. > > > > - "the interpretant is a modifier of consciousness" 5.485 > > > > -"the whole function of thought is to produce habits of action' > > 5.400; 6.262 > > > > - this 'logical interpretant' has the function of a 'habit-change' > > [see 5.476 > > > > The works of Peirce are filled with these analyses - too many to > > quote here. > > > > That is - my understanding of the Final Interpretant is that its > > role is to develop and change habits, relevant to the actual world [of > > Secondness] and yet capable of the obvious expansion of diversity and > > complexity in life. In the biological realm, what we see is that the Final > > Interpretant accepts information/data from many individual agents; it > > generalizes this data; and then, this generalization becomes dominant and > > acts to change the species habits stored within Thirdness such that, a > > bird develops a new beak; a moth develops different coloured wings..and so > > on. > > > > The Final Interpretant is not 'often' used; most of life operates > > within Firstness/Secondness - and a stable Thirdness. But, the Final > > Interpretant is, I feel, the key to how we change habits. > > > > The Final Interpretant is a means of enabling the infinite > > evolution of the world's diversity and complexity. It collects data from > > multiple sites - generalizes them, and this new 'habit' becomes dominant > > and changes the habits-of-formation of a species. > > > > With regard to your example of the changes in style in the life of > > an artist - I'd say the process is similar, where the artist develops a > > 'normative style of his art'..and then, by means of interaction with > > others, with experience etc...comes to a Final Interpretant phase, where he > > changes his 'normative style of art'. > > > > Notice that my view of the Final Interpretant is an evolutionary > > one; there is no notion of a final Perfection, but instead, a concept of > > infinite capacity, via input data from multiple sites, plus the action of > > generalization.. to change the habits of a Type. > > > > 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 [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 . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
