Part of my post remained in French. I apologize for that. "I consider that the text below is fundamental to justify the use of a new concept that will fulfill this function of "social counter-reaction" of individual semiosis:" Best, RM
Le lun. 25 mai 2020 à 12:19, robert marty <[email protected]> a écrit : > Edwina, Jon Alan, Helmut, List > > Most of the discussions on the list have focused philosophical questions > on final causes, efficient causes, goals, etc. ... and many disagreements > have been found ... I would point out that these discussions focus on > what is happening in the interpretants of the hexadic sign and I have even > seen that a subject on their plethora -which I have not yet been able to > consult- has been created. But on what happens before, apart from a > consensus on the Od-Oi-S sequence that no one questions, there is very > little. I mentioned it necessarily in the parable value example in response > to Jon Alan in which I mentioned that the utterers of the sign could do > nothing but mark the sign of its subjectivity. Even when he utters the > word "pipe" he mobilizes his own conception of the concept of "pipe", most > likely consistent with what is in the mind of most potential receivers. > However, > in all cases whether it is the concept itself (for example in a discussion > about the harmfulness of pipes), a real pipe or a painful experience > related to a pipe,, it will be necessary to verify that it is indeed a > pipe. And if I chose pipe" everyone will have understood that it is to > ensure the reinforcement of René Magritte. > > What I want to emphasize here is that it may not be a good methodology to > give such a preference for interpretation in semiosis without focusing the > analysis on the whole process. And I come to Edwina's question: "Comment?" > I read it in French but I could have read it in English ... and probably > the ambiguity was it intended ... > > I rephrase it this way: how individual semiosis articulates with global > semiosis ? Edwina provided an interactionist response that would result in > a final interpretant that will obviously be historically dated as a > provisional result of these multiple interactions. For my part I proposed a > slightly different conceptualization that takes into account the fact that > the signs being obligated interfaces (a medium for the communication of a > form for example) between the outside world and the inner world it is > necessary to grasp by "a same movement of thought", the before-sign and the > after-sign with the physiological perception of the sign as a connection > between these two worlds. Otherwise we run the risk of introducing > unsuspected biases that lead to questions that do not arise or that arise > in other words, such as those I mentioned at the beginning of this post. > > Je considère que le texte ci-dessous est fondamental pour justifier > l'emploi d'un nouveau concept qui remplira cette fonction de > "contre-réaction sociale" des semiosis individuelles : > > *" But while I say this, it must not be inferred that I regard > consciousness as a mere "epiphenomenon"; though I heartily grant that the > hypothesis that it is so has done good service to science. To my > apprehension, consciousness may be defined as that congeries of > non-relative predicates, varying greatly in quality and in intensity, which > are symptomatic of the interaction of the outer world -- the world of those > causes that are exceedingly compulsive upon the modes of consciousness, > with general disturbance sometimes amounting to shock, and are acted upon > only slightly, and only by a special kind of effort, muscular effort -- and > of the inner world, apparently derived from the outer, and amenable to > direct effort of various kinds with feeble reactions; the interaction of > these two worlds chiefly consisting of a direct action of the outer world > upon the inner and an indirect action of the inner world upon the outer > through the operation of habits. If this be a correct account of > consciousness, i.e., of the congeries of feelings, it seems to me that it > exercises a real function in self-control, since without it, or at least > without that of which it is symptomatic, the resolves and exercises of the > inner world could not affect the real determinations and habits of the > outer world. I say that these belong to the outer world because they are > not mere fantasies but are real agencies." **CP (5.493 ,Pragmatism, 1906)* > > But this fundamental text alone does not solve the question posed by > Edwina because it obviously lacks the commens, this concept that dominates > both the emission of signs and their receptions. A concept that is added to > this text allows us to situate Peirce's semiotics in the social field, his > study in sociology and his practice among social practices. But the commens > as Peirce presents it is a general framework in which individual signs are > supposed to cooperate to arrive at a kind of social semiosis whose dynamics > feed on individual variations. These are mostly the result of material > changes in the outside world as a result of the development of science and > technology, their impact on the environment, the circulation of ideas (and > viruses...), etc. It is not integrated es-qualities into the semiotic > sequence; it is just the framework in which it unfolds. One way to > integrate it is to use the concept of an institution as defined and used in > institutional analysis. > > On the use of this concept in sociology there are significant differences > between its development in the Anglo-Saxon world (William Richard > Scott; Douglass North > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Richard_Scott> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_North>, Nobel Prize for Economics > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_for_Economics> in 1993; Di > Maggio, The new institutionalism) mainly in the field of economics an > European thinkers (MarcelMauss, Max Weber) with a large French School quite > dispersed (MichelFoucauld, Cornelius Castoriadis, René Lourau). That is > why I will not refer today as I did in 1989 to its Hegelian version. The > latter, ignored from Wikipedia in English, classically distinguishes the > three moments from the concept "instituted", "instituting", > institutionalization and applies it rather in terms of critical > sociological in fields such as psychotherapy, pedagogy, the sociology of > organisms and interventionism, psychosociology,... > (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analyse_institutionnelle ). > > That is why I will give at least a consensual definition with all the > approaches I have just mentioned that will be compatible with the commens > and pragmatic thinking present in the 5,493 mentioned above. I borrow most > of them in the en. Wikipedia : > > *"institutional theory is a theory on the deeper and more **resilient > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resilience_(organizational)>** aspects of > social structure. It considers the processes by which structures, including > schemes, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative > guidelines for social behavior. Different components of institutional > theory explain how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and > adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and > disuse.(**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_theory > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_theory>*) > > I'will add to this an important precision which concerns the continuous > movement of change of the *commens *by institutions modified by social > movements driven by the evolution of science and technology in the broadest > sense including communication techniques and populist challenges that place > irrational leaders in a position to legislate, that is, able to impose > laws. Peirce provides a "weak" version of institutional interaction (*an > indirect action of the inner world upon the outer through the operation of > habits*) in relation to the means of influence of his time. Today we can > clearly assume that what has been called "the communication society" and > even the "consumer society" have multiplied by an extremely high factor > these indirect actions which can be real mass manipulations. > > This concept thus extended and stripped of any economic or ideological > connotations seems to me perfectly suited to guarantee the operationality > of semiotic analysis in today's world. My study on nicotine is a good > example and my answer "parable" to Jon Alan an illustration in the course > of the list. > > Best regards, > > Robert > > > > Le sam. 23 mai 2020 à 22:46, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> Robert, list >> >> Yes - I see your point and agree. Certainly, if the FI in ONE semiosic >> process was in a mode of Thirdness, then, the 'preceding' nodes of the >> process could not be in any other mode than Thirdness. >> >> But is the Final Interpretant ever due to only one semiosic process or >> from one individual? I don't want to be seen as 'slithering out' of your >> justified comment - but isn't the FI due to a 'commons' - where, if we >> imagine a complex networked web of semiosic interactions from MANY >> individuals - where some are functioning in 1ns, some in 2ns, some in a >> mixture of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, and some in 3ns.....that the Final Interpretant >> in this networked community - would be that generalized law? Then, this >> community will presumably change its habits - but - even so, a community >> will continue to 'be semiosic' within all ten sign classes, so to speak - >> and will only once-in-a-while develop a Final Interpretant from within its >> semiosic processes. >> >> Comment? >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> On Sat 23/05/20 4:32 PM , robert marty [email protected] sent: >> >> 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 : >> >> Od3àOi3à S3àX3àY3àZ3 >> >> 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 <[email protected] > 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" [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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM robert marty <[email protected]> >>> 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 [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> >>> 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 [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.
