List,
Whilst there can be an infinite amount of interpreting by a potentially
limitless community, final interpretant isn't this.
Alongside descriptions by for example Donna Williams, a writer on
neurology, the immediate interpretant corresponds to the pure perception
part of colour, shape, space, sounds, scent etc, and the dynamical one
is the emotional and motor reflexes ensuing either "automatically" or by
habit (fright, delight, retraction from danger) - Donna calls these two
combined the "system of sensing"; while the final interpretant comprises
those concepts one is used to adding, or freshly figures out, namely the
meaning or signification - Donna's "system of interpretation". When one
is unwell or is in delayed development, these occur in sequence or the
latter one(s) don't readily happen.
In addition, there is feedback from the final interpretant situation
into the emotional and motor reflexes, e.g one decides it is horrible or
realises it is dangerous or recognises a thing one likes; this might
follow by a split second or, if a thing is new to one, longer.
The same set of processes occur when the concretes are imagined and even
when they are fairly abstract. This is because imagination is the
laboratory or workshop atop our shoulders. Memory outputs into
imagination and so we can feel, analyse and discuss our memories.
The central nervous system (CNS) handles the symbolism in the sensory
epistemology arising from physical reality, and there can be infinite
layers of symbols of symbols.
Words allude, and when several of these intersect, we can have a
meaning. This is why reifying (which I see as taking "literally
literally") doesn't work.
Any comments welcome.
Michael Mitchell - linguist - UK
On 2020-05-18 21:04, Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela wrote:
Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed
-------------------------
DE: "Jerry Rhee" <[email protected]>
À: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>
CC: "Gary Fuhrman" <[email protected]>, "peirce-l"
<[email protected]>
ENVOYÉ: Lundi 18 Mai 2020 21:18:19
OBJET: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the
classification of signs
Dear Helmut, list,
What an interesting observation.
_meh_.. I don’t believe it.
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:25 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]>
wrote:
List
do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the
final interpretant is the first element in logical order, but the
last in temporal order? In this case I would propose a solution
attempt like this: The truth works as a motive, a quest for it,
although it is not yet achieved. People (animals, organisms,
molecules?) have a feeling, intuition, instinct, internalised law or
axiom, that everything has or would have a true representation. This
final interpretant, though not realised, does nevertheless do its
work for the sign this way here and now.
Best,
Helmut
18. Mai 2020 um 17:18 Uhr
[email protected]
wrote:
Robert, is it your intention to argue that communication cannot
“succeed” _at all_ unless the interpretant of the sign is
completely determinate, and identically so for all communicants?
Would you likewise say that knowledge is not actual, or real, unless
it is absolute and unquestionable?
Gary f.
FROM: robert marty <[email protected]>
SENT: 18-May-20 03:25
TO: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
CC: Peirce-L <[email protected]>
SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the
classification of signs
Jon Alan, List
I repeat this debate with you and it leads me to ask you a
preliminary question that I should have asked you on September 22,
2018, but I probably did not have very clear ideas 18 months ago.
Here it is: what you say this:
" The DESTINATE Interpretant is what the Sign is destined to signify
at the end of infinite inquiry by an infinite community; i.e., the
Final Interpretant"?
Because this quote troubles me a little: " In that second part, I
call "truth" the PREDESTINATE opinion,17 by which I ought to have
meant that which would ultimately prevail if investigation were
carried sufficiently far in that particular direction." (The
Essential Peirce A Sketch of Logical Critics p.457)
It seems to me in complete fact that if this were the case the whole
of humanity would be doomed to wait until the end of eternity to
succeed in its first communication. Unless an immanent power
deposits it in all minds at the moment of the perception of the
sign? Should we read "predestinate"?
Because there's a perception, isn't there? You will not be able to
escape the chronology until the end of time: the signs that actually
occur in social life must be taken care of by the theory of signs,
shaped to be subjected to analysis, debated ... Etc... Otherwise
what are we doing here?
Best regards,
Robert
-----------------------------
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 .
