Edwina ,Helmut, List The final interpretant certainly is a change of habit (which may be the preservation of habit or the return to old habits) but it can not be only a Thirdness . If this were the case there would be only one class of hexadics signs :
Od3àOi3àS3àX3àY3àZ3 in some system X,Y,Z of denominations either with Z interpretant final ... The change in habit may or may not be a change in the subjective theory of the receiver or a change in his physical reaction patterns or in his modes of emotional reactions ... and then we find the 28 classes ... Best regards, Robert Le sam. 23 mai 2020 à 15:38, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> a écrit : > 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" h.raul...@gmx.de 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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> > 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 >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didacticism> story, in prose >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose> or verse >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_(poetry)>, that illustrates one or >> more instructive lessons or principles" ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable ) ... >> >> 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 >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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. > > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.
