"robert marty" <robert.mart...@gmail.com>
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
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,HelmutRobert, 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 .
