Helmut, list - I wonder if we are mixing terms.
Final cause and the final interpretant are not at all similar.
1] Final Cause is not the same as Final Interpretant.
Peirce locates the three interpretants in order of, as I see it, of
emergence in the semiosic process, which does therefore insert a
temporality, with the immediate interpretant as the individual
subjective experience of the data from the DO and IO as mediated by
the sign/representamen, and then the Dynamical Interpretant ‘which
is the actual effect which the Sign determines [again, within the
individual] – and then the Final Interpretant…’the way in
which every mind would act’ 8.315 – which latter inserts a
commonality of understanding.
If we understand that logic requires a process of generality, then
the final interpretant includes that generality. That is, it includes
the category of Thirdness. But we must remember, that not all semiosic
events include this generalizing category. Indeed, most of our
semiosic interactions 'stop', so to speak, with Firstness and
Seccondness. This is why that last node in the hexadic process is not
always present to that process. Indeed - we could even say the
semiosic process is most often a five rather than six node process!
That would actually make sense, if we understand the Final
Interpretant as a 'commonality of laws', as a Logical Interpretant,
to be engaged in expressing those habits or laws. Habit changes are
not carried out every second but with less frequency.
2] What is final cause? To Peirce, as I understand it does not
include an agential purpose. 1.211, with final cause instead
understood, as he puts it, as ‘the ideal or final’. But what is
this 'ideal or final'? Does it include a sense of value? Who or what
would provide this value? Or is it instead ‘the general principle
which is regarded as the cause and the individual fact to which it is
applied is taken as the understood factor [EP 2.315-6]. What is this
general principle?
Final cause can also be understood as Thirdness, the law. This
brings in Peirce's concept of matter as mind. As he writes, 'Mind
has its universal mode of action, namely, by final causation....with
natural selection" the theory of how forms come to be adaptive, that
is, to be governed by a quasi purpose. 1.269, The key word is
'adaptive' where organisms interact with each other and adapt.
How does this universal law of mind operate? By, for example 'the
great law of association, an attraction between ideas' 1.270.. Or,
the universe functions within a 'law of nature, ie, the
rationalization of the universe' 1.590. And 'the process of
evolution whereby the existent comes more and more to embody those
generals which were just not said to be destined which is what we
strive to express in calling them reasonable' 5.433. [see also
agapistic evolution]. Note that evolution is not 'destined' but
'reasonable'. That inserts the notion that 'matter is effete mind.
6.25 where the two 'universes' of mind and matter coincide 6.501. Or
'matter is mind hidebound with habits' 6. 158
Note, Helmut, that this definite end of final cause is not
predetermined but operates within the objectively existent world and
renders that world functional and adaptive; it is 'adaptation' which
is the 'definite end' I,e., the generation of functional habits of
Mind-as-Matter, not some predetermined agential idea.
Therefore - the way I see it is that the Final Interpretant is a
not-often-realized semiosic event, where a commonality of
interpretation is generated by a commonality of individuals [human or
otherwise]. While Final Cause has to do with the concept of
Mind-as-Matter, where Mind is constantly 'actualizing' itself as
Matter, within a complex and dynamic interactional process of
networked semiosis.
Edwina
On Sat 23/05/20 4:03 AM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
Jon, List, Peirce is not necessarily always right, is he? "For
evolution is nothing more nor less than the working out of a definite
end", is theism and speculation, isn´t it? One may also assume, that
evolution is continuous adaption without an end. And when he wrote "A
final cause may be conceived to operate without having been the
purpose of any mind", had he forgotten then, that he had claimed that
the universe has a mind? If it has, why should it pursue its own end?
I think doomsdayism is always theistic speculation. The big chill
too, like the big bang, is not scientifically proven. I think, that
evolution itself has a mind, though working quite slowly. A better
example for final cause I see in the needs of organisms, who pursue
an end to these needs. Or their DNA does it for them, which is a
memory of the mind of evolution of their species. Organisms who have
brains apply a third kind of causation, volitional or example
causation: They remember or anticipate something they want to get.
These three kinds of causation are related by analogy to the three
kinds of inference. Best, Helmut 23. Mai 2020 um 04:14 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote: Robert, List: Thanks for providing this creative answer
to some of my questions, which I have been pondering carefully. It
confirms that we have very different theories about semeiosis, and
apparently very different interpretations of Peirce's writings on
that subject. For one thing, he explicitly and repeatedly affirms
the reality of final causes, and even points to biological evolution
as a paradigmatic manifestation of them. CSP: Perhaps, since
phrases retain their sway over men's minds long after their meaning
has evaporated, it may be that some reader, even at this day, remains
imbued with the old notion that there are no final causes in nature;
in which case, natural selection, and every form of evolution, would
be false. For evolution is nothing more nor less than the working out
of a definite end. A final cause may be conceived to operate without
having been the purpose of any mind ... but that definite ends are
worked out none of us today any longer deny. Our eyes have been
opened; and the evidence is too overwhelming. (CP 1.204, 1902)
Notice that for Peirce final causes do not entail agency, theistic or
otherwise. He confirms this later in the same manuscript. CSP:
It is, as I was saying, a widespread error to think that a "final
cause" is necessarily a purpose. A purpose is merely that form of
final cause which is most familiar to our experience. (CP 1.211)
However, I will not belabor that point any further. Instead, for
comparison I will try to spell out my own semeiotic analysis of my
previous post, hopefully sometime this weekend. Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:58
AM robert marty wrote: Jon Alan, List
I'd rather we stay on the list. I have clues that suggest that
people are interested; if some are embarrassed they have no
obligation ...
Today I will answer your questions using another rhetorical means,
the parable ...
"A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, that
illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable [4] ) ...
I assure you, it will be prose ...
On 05/20/20 at a certain time, in the mind of a person living in
Olathe, Kansas,USA, (the sender), a person who has well-established
and known ideas from the list on the final causes, effective causes,
determinations, ... a subjective theory labelled "JAS" (Od) is formed
the idea of addressing questions to a member of the list in particular
and also to the list (the receiver, the receivers)… he imagines a
series of questions (Oi) that are necessarily determined by his
theory which they carry "in hollow" the mark ... he writes them and
publishes them (S) … its main receiver (his first name is an index
perceived first) perceives this text ... in the course of his reading
his mind is inhabited by more or less blurred mnemonic reminders of a
large number of objects of previous discussions, more or less
interconnected, mixed - as with each of the messages he received from
the same sender - with this following information (index) which never
ceased to amaze him: " Professional Engineer, Philosopher Amateur,
Lutheran Layman". All this has formed in his mind a kind of
"interpretation guide" from which he apprehends the content of the
messages received from this sender, a set to which is added the one
to which I answer by the parable - under construction before my eyes
and soon under yours, i e of all those who will perceive it (read
it). This receiver has therefore, with more or less accuracy,
conceptualized this set. He finds himself obliged, simply to have
read this injunctive message, in which the sender has somehow "
printed his mark", to modify or not his uncertain conceptualization
in which dominates the idea of "predestination" that his studies and
readings have allowed him to associate with Lutheranism (Calvinism
too) and in general protestantism: It's (If) … in immediate
reaction in his mind is recalled his own subjective theory which
contains his long-held opinions on these issues (Ie). He acquired
them early by reading Jacques Monod's 1965 Nobel Prize book ," Hasard
and Necessity," later reinforced by reading René Thom's book, Medall
Field of Mathematics (1958), entitled " Structural Stability and
Morphogenesis, W. A. Benjamin, (1972) ". After a quick confrontation
between the two theories for a possible change in the way he
considers the questions of the final causes and the efficient causes,
he decides not to modify one iota and to communicate this decision to
the person who asked it and to the list (Iex) in the explicit form
that here: "In his world of signs, determinations are efficient
causes and there is no need to incorporate final causes that his own
subjective theory and underlying atheism exclude.".
Best,
Robert (the receiver)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity [5]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [6] . ► PEIRCE-L is
owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed
by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity
[6] 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
