Tarski, Peirce, and Truth-Tarski, Peirce, and Truth-Correspondences in Law Correspondences in Law

Can Semiotics Describe Truth in Legal Can Semiotics Describe Truth in Legal Discourse?Discourse?

Paul R. Van FleetPaul R. Van Fleet

The DivideThe Divide

WesternWestern

Meaning is MADEMeaning is MADE

Abrahamic ReligionsAbrahamic Religions

The World is a Sum The World is a Sum of Partsof Parts

Logical AnalysisLogical Analysis

Are you eating the Are you eating the menu?menu?

EasternEastern

Meaning ARISESMeaning ARISES

Hinduism, BuddhismHinduism, Buddhism

The World is an The World is an Inseparable WholeInseparable Whole

Direct ExperienceDirect Experience

What are you eating?What are you eating?

The Bridge – Semiotics!The Bridge – Semiotics!

Semiotics aims to identify meaning, but as Semiotics aims to identify meaning, but as a unified whole – it is a tool to describe the a unified whole – it is a tool to describe the infinite relations between objects and infinite relations between objects and interpretants by using signsinterpretants by using signs

This way, we know that the dinner we eat This way, we know that the dinner we eat is not confined to the menu and we can is not confined to the menu and we can use that menu to choose what we eat!use that menu to choose what we eat!

Signs and SymbolsSigns and Symbols

Throughout the presentation, keep in mind this Throughout the presentation, keep in mind this necessary relation:necessary relation:

ALL SYMBOLS ARE SIGNS, BUT NOT ALL ALL SYMBOLS ARE SIGNS, BUT NOT ALL SIGNS ARE SYMBOLSSIGNS ARE SYMBOLS

This is important because analytic traditions use This is important because analytic traditions use symbols as the building blocks of logical symbols as the building blocks of logical analysis.analysis.Semiotics, however, uses the sign as the Semiotics, however, uses the sign as the building block of semiotic analysis.building block of semiotic analysis.

Correspondence Theory of TruthCorrespondence Theory of Truth

““The world is all that is the case.” – L. The world is all that is the case.” – L. WittgensteinWittgenstein

The main thesis – If a proposition The main thesis – If a proposition corresponds to reality (or what corresponds to reality (or what isis), then the ), then the proposition is true.proposition is true.

The problem – What is reality? What is a The problem – What is reality? What is a fact?fact?

Das Wahre Das Wahre and and Das FalscheDas Falsche

Gottlob FregeGottlob FregeAny function (or sign) Any function (or sign) with a value of either with a value of either das Wahre das Wahre (the true)(the true) or or das Falsche (das Falsche (the false) the false) exists as a proposition.exists as a proposition.Evaluating these truth functions requires a comparison to “the state of affairs.” – a correspondence theory of truth!

Alfred Tarski (1901-1983)Alfred Tarski (1901-1983)

The Big Four of Logic The Big Four of Logic – Aristotle, Gödel, – Aristotle, Gödel, Frege, and TarskiFrege, and Tarski

Professor at Professor at University of WarsawUniversity of Warsaw

Mathematician Mathematician

LogicianLogician

Convention-TConvention-T

Convention-TConvention-TThe PrerequisitesThe Prerequisites

Propositional language Propositional language – Language used to express a propositionLanguage used to express a proposition

If propositional language is used to If propositional language is used to evaluate that proposition’s truth, evaluate that proposition’s truth, the the system ultimately collapses on its own system ultimately collapses on its own self-referential natureself-referential nature

The solution - Meta-language!The solution - Meta-language!

Why Meta-Language is NecessaryWhy Meta-Language is Necessary

The The statement statement within a within a

rectangle on rectangle on this slide is this slide is

false.false.

Let Let cc be an abbreviation for “the statement be an abbreviation for “the statement within a rectangle on this slide.”within a rectangle on this slide.”Then, consider Then, consider c,c, then then only view this slide only view this slide (the (the only available set of information). only available set of information). ““c” c” becomes identical with the statement “becomes identical with the statement “c c is is false.”false.”BUT, BUT, “c “c is false” if and only if is false” if and only if cc is false. is false.Therefore, Therefore, c c is true if and only if is true if and only if c c is false.is false.If propositions are considered on the same If propositions are considered on the same level of analysis, i.e. primary analysis, then level of analysis, i.e. primary analysis, then this contradiction occurs and the system fails. this contradiction occurs and the system fails.

How Meta-Language WorksHow Meta-Language Works

If we have a secondary language to If we have a secondary language to evaluate the primary proposition, then the evaluate the primary proposition, then the previous contradiction does not occur.previous contradiction does not occur.So, meta-language is the language by So, meta-language is the language by which we evaluate the truth of primary which we evaluate the truth of primary propositions. propositions. This insight is crucial to Tarski’s seminal This insight is crucial to Tarski’s seminal contribution to an analytic definition of contribution to an analytic definition of truth – Convention T truth – Convention T

Convention TConvention T

For some x: T(x) if and only if φ (x).For some x: T(x) if and only if φ (x).

Let x = the statement in propositional language, T = the proposition-Let x = the statement in propositional language, T = the proposition-language truth function of that statement, and language truth function of that statement, and φφ = the meta- = the meta-

language truth function language truth function

For some x, x is true in the propositional language if and only if x is true For some x, x is true in the propositional language if and only if x is true in the meta-language that evaluates the propositional language.in the meta-language that evaluates the propositional language.

Convention-T is most useful when the meta-language is defined by Convention-T is most useful when the meta-language is defined by the same syntax and value sets that the propositional language the same syntax and value sets that the propositional language contains. contains.

The meta-language confirms the truth or falsity of the propositional The meta-language confirms the truth or falsity of the propositional language by using one’s existing knowledge on the subject. language by using one’s existing knowledge on the subject.

Convention T and Legal DiscourseConvention T and Legal Discourse

In Tarski’s theory, the set by which the meta-In Tarski’s theory, the set by which the meta-language is defined is language is defined is conceptual.conceptual.

In legal discourse, the set by which the meta-In legal discourse, the set by which the meta-language is defined is language is defined is institutionalinstitutional..

This means that the legal profession determines This means that the legal profession determines truth and falsity according to truth and falsity according to legal legal truth – the law truth – the law must must assume that every fact presented to it is assume that every fact presented to it is either true or false, regardless of whether this either true or false, regardless of whether this may actually be determined. may actually be determined.

Legal Correspondence Theory Legal Correspondence Theory (Criminal Law)(Criminal Law)

P1 – A statute defines a situation as a crime.P1 – A statute defines a situation as a crime.

P2 – Some event occurs. P2 – Some event occurs.

P3 - Certain facts of this event are analagous to P3 - Certain facts of this event are analagous to the situation the statute defines.the situation the statute defines.

C – A crime occurs.C – A crime occurs.

Here, we see that law defines its OWN truth! Here, we see that law defines its OWN truth!

An Example - TheftAn Example - Theft

“A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.” - 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.

So let’s break this down into analytic-legal language…

18 Pa.C.S. § 3921 Broken Down18 Pa.C.S. § 3921 Broken Down

Let Let x symbolizes some movable property, x symbolizes some movable property,

Let U symbolizes unlawful taking, Let U symbolizes unlawful taking,

Let E symbolizes an exercise of unlawful control, Let E symbolizes an exercise of unlawful control,

Let D stand for the intent to deprive, Let D stand for the intent to deprive,

Let T stand for a theft. Let T stand for a theft.

∀∀x: (U(x) v E(x)) ^ I(x) → T(x).x: (U(x) v E(x)) ^ I(x) → T(x).

Each of the functions must be evaluated for truth in order to find a theft! Each of the functions must be evaluated for truth in order to find a theft!

What tools do we have to evaluate truth?What tools do we have to evaluate truth?

Truth TablesTruth Tables

A truth table is an A truth table is an analytic tool to analytic tool to determine the truth or determine the truth or falsity of not only falsity of not only symbols, but relations symbols, but relations between those between those symbols.symbols.First consider the First consider the proposition “X.”proposition “X.”Consider the Consider the proposition “X and Y.”proposition “X and Y.”

X →, X →, Y↓Y↓

TT FF

TT TT FF

FF FF FF

XX TT FF

Not-XNot-X FF TT

The Fatal Flaw The Fatal Flaw

Analytic-legal traditions assume that every Analytic-legal traditions assume that every symbol must be true or false, regardless of symbol must be true or false, regardless of whether that truth is actually determinable.whether that truth is actually determinable.The law is actually not concerned with The law is actually not concerned with actual actual truth, but is more concerned with truth, but is more concerned with assigningassigning truth. truth.The analytic-legal tradition cannot create room The analytic-legal tradition cannot create room for new concepts – it can only attempt to define for new concepts – it can only attempt to define those by classifying them into the existing set. those by classifying them into the existing set. If a set is too limited to introduce new concepts, If a set is too limited to introduce new concepts, however, it fails to do what it is supposed to do – however, it fails to do what it is supposed to do – describe our world.describe our world.

Semiotic-Legal Truth AnalysisSemiotic-Legal Truth Analysis

Instead of the limited analytic tradition, where a Instead of the limited analytic tradition, where a sign/symbol must be true or false, the semiotic sign/symbol must be true or false, the semiotic tradition allows for the indeterminacy of truth to tradition allows for the indeterminacy of truth to play into truth analysis.play into truth analysis.

This concept requires an acceptance of This concept requires an acceptance of firstnessfirstness, the initial condition where , the initial condition where “the mode “the mode of being which consists in its subject’s being of being which consists in its subject’s being positively such as it is regardless of aught positively such as it is regardless of aught else.”else.” (Peirce) (Peirce)

Husserl and the Husserl and the EinstellungänderungEinstellungänderung

EinstellungänderungEinstellungänderung = = “attitude change”“attitude change”One may have an infinite One may have an infinite number of attitudes number of attitudes towards a particular towards a particular stimulus.stimulus.Attitude changes towards Attitude changes towards that stimulus create new that stimulus create new meaning, and since that meaning, and since that attitude may change in an attitude may change in an infinite number of ways, infinite number of ways, infinite meaning may infinite meaning may result.result.

Peirce and Peirce and FirstnessFirstness

Peirce uses a similar idea Peirce uses a similar idea in his conception of in his conception of firstness.firstness.Peirce makes it absolutely Peirce makes it absolutely clear that clear that firstnessfirstness exists exists onlyonly in a theoretical in a theoretical concept, because concept, because “as “as long as things do not act long as things do not act upon one another, there upon one another, there is no sense or meaning is no sense or meaning in saying that they have in saying that they have any being.” any being.” FirstnessFirstness is the awareness is the awareness of attitude change, which of attitude change, which expresses itself as feeling expresses itself as feeling

Difficulties in Difficulties in FirstnessFirstness

In contrast to logical analysis, which is mechanical and In contrast to logical analysis, which is mechanical and rigid with no real conception of firstness (as a result of rigid with no real conception of firstness (as a result of verification consisting of a set), Peirce’s conception of verification consisting of a set), Peirce’s conception of the process of feeling and firstness is necessarily whole, the process of feeling and firstness is necessarily whole, with the expectation of rupture with the expectation of rupture – However, with the whole of firstness being continually ruptured, However, with the whole of firstness being continually ruptured,

which means that the whole must necessarily change!which means that the whole must necessarily change!

Peirce must yoke the mercurial nature of firstness to Peirce must yoke the mercurial nature of firstness to objects for some consistency, without diminishing the objects for some consistency, without diminishing the importance; thus arises secondness and thirdness.importance; thus arises secondness and thirdness.– Remember, we want to have some idea of what we’re eating!Remember, we want to have some idea of what we’re eating!

How can How can Firstness Firstness be Expressed in be Expressed in Truth?Truth?

The concept of firstness plays into truth-analysis The concept of firstness plays into truth-analysis by allowing logical symbols to be analyzed as by allowing logical symbols to be analyzed as semiotic signs.semiotic signs.

Signs must acknowledge that truth or falsity may Signs must acknowledge that truth or falsity may be expressed as a quality of a sign, but signs be expressed as a quality of a sign, but signs must also be able to designate truth as must also be able to designate truth as indeterminate.indeterminate.– This is because the sign must remain true to the This is because the sign must remain true to the

concept of concept of firstness firstness as an infinite whole.as an infinite whole.

We must then introduce a NEW truth-value.We must then introduce a NEW truth-value.

The L-ValueThe L-Value

The L-value indicates The L-value indicates indeterminate truth, or a indeterminate truth, or a “unknown.“unknown.

So to explain the right So to explain the right table, when X is true, not-table, when X is true, not-X is false, and vice-versa.X is false, and vice-versa.

However, if the truth of X However, if the truth of X is unknown, or L, then the is unknown, or L, then the truth of not-X must also truth of not-X must also be unknown.be unknown.

XX TT FF LL

Not-XNot-X FF TT LL

An Expanded Relation An Expanded Relation

Consider the Consider the relation “X and relation “X and Y.”Y.”

X→,X→,Y↓Y↓ TT FF LL

TT TT FF LL

FF FF FF FF

LL LL FF LL

Another Relation Another Relation

Consider Consider “X or Y.”“X or Y.”

X→,X→, Y↓Y↓ TT FF LL

TT TT TT TT

FF TT FF LL

LL TT LL LL

What the L-value DoesWhat the L-value Does

The L-value, because it signifies an unknown truth-value, The L-value, because it signifies an unknown truth-value, must allow for an equal chance of the sign-quality “true-must allow for an equal chance of the sign-quality “true-false” – which means that the sign can be BOTH true or false” – which means that the sign can be BOTH true or false, consistent with the infinite quality of false, consistent with the infinite quality of firstnessfirstness..An example:An example:– Consider an individual who has only seen the colors red and Consider an individual who has only seen the colors red and

blue, and has no other experience with color.blue, and has no other experience with color.– This individual now is presented with a color that is equal parts This individual now is presented with a color that is equal parts

red and blue.red and blue.– If he is constrained to determining whether it is true that the color If he is constrained to determining whether it is true that the color

is red, or that it is true that the color is blue, as he would be by is red, or that it is true that the color is blue, as he would be by an analytic set, then “purple” cannot arise as an independent an analytic set, then “purple” cannot arise as an independent sign. The subject must make a choice – red or blue.sign. The subject must make a choice – red or blue.

– If the individual is semiotically guided, then his conception of If the individual is semiotically guided, then his conception of “purple” may exist (because he can assign the L value in his “purple” may exist (because he can assign the L value in his truth-conception), and he can evaluate the statement “It is true truth-conception), and he can evaluate the statement “It is true that this shade is red (or blue)” that this shade is red (or blue)” in accord with reality.in accord with reality.

Why the L-value is ImportantWhy the L-value is Important

Analytic-legal analysis assumes a 1:1 ratio.Analytic-legal analysis assumes a 1:1 ratio.– The sign must have ONE definition that is present in The sign must have ONE definition that is present in

the set, and correspond to ONE way that the world the set, and correspond to ONE way that the world actually is.actually is.

The L-value allows for flexibility, on the other The L-value allows for flexibility, on the other hand, and acknowledges infinite attitude hand, and acknowledges infinite attitude changes – a ∞:1:∞ ratio.changes – a ∞:1:∞ ratio.– The sign may have INFINITE definitions, before being The sign may have INFINITE definitions, before being

tied to one object through semiosis.tied to one object through semiosis.– The “attitude change” in The “attitude change” in firstnessfirstness then returns the sign then returns the sign

to the previous infinite potential.to the previous infinite potential.

Can Semiotic Truth Analysis Adequately Can Semiotic Truth Analysis Adequately Describe Legal Discourse?Describe Legal Discourse?

In short, no – not because of any In short, no – not because of any fault in the semiotic process, but fault in the semiotic process, but

because the institutional structure because the institutional structure of legal discourse will not allow of legal discourse will not allow interpretations that it does not interpretations that it does not

finitely determine.finitely determine.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3921“A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.”– Some elements here are relatively easy to define as “true” or

“false” within a setMovable property (referring to an object)

– Others are more difficultUnlawfully takes? Control? (referring to a state)

– Others virtually cannot beIntent?? (a feeling)Can we really see into a person’s soul and determine intent?Intent relies on much more than legal reasoning - it relies on surrounding relations.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3921 (cont.)In legal discourse, when theft occurs, there must In legal discourse, when theft occurs, there must be “unlawfully takes” AND “movable property” be “unlawfully takes” AND “movable property” AND “intent to deprive.”AND “intent to deprive.”– Keep in mind that this is a closed set.Keep in mind that this is a closed set.

In semiotic discourse, theft is “unlawfully takes-In semiotic discourse, theft is “unlawfully takes-movable property-intent to deprive…”movable property-intent to deprive…”– The ellipsis is important because those individual The ellipsis is important because those individual

elements are linked to an entire web of relations.elements are linked to an entire web of relations.– Acknowledging the entire web of relations necessarily Acknowledging the entire web of relations necessarily

relegates “theft” to the L-value, which legal discourse relegates “theft” to the L-value, which legal discourse cannot tolerate.cannot tolerate.

FEC v. Citizens UnitedFEC v. Citizens United

In general discourse, a corporation may be In general discourse, a corporation may be thought of as an entity that exists apart from its thought of as an entity that exists apart from its shareholders and also as property that is held in shareholders and also as property that is held in trust for the shareholders.trust for the shareholders.– Semiotically, a corporation is “entity-property” in the Semiotically, a corporation is “entity-property” in the

general discourse.general discourse.

However, the majority in the Supreme Court However, the majority in the Supreme Court eviscerated the property-relation from the sign eviscerated the property-relation from the sign “corporation,” and declared that it was true that a “corporation,” and declared that it was true that a corporation was an “entity,” only self-referentially corporation was an “entity,” only self-referentially examining those legal facts that supported the examining those legal facts that supported the entity conception of a corporation. entity conception of a corporation.

FEC v. Citizens United (cont.)FEC v. Citizens United (cont.)

The sign “corporation” is no longer a ∞:1 The sign “corporation” is no longer a ∞:1 ratio sign whose truth is indicated by the ratio sign whose truth is indicated by the potentiality of the L-value. “Corporation” is potentiality of the L-value. “Corporation” is now merely a 1:1 ratio symbol of the now merely a 1:1 ratio symbol of the entity, classified as “true” or “false.” entity, classified as “true” or “false.”

In this way, analytic-legal discourse has In this way, analytic-legal discourse has made a Procrustean bed, forcing the made a Procrustean bed, forcing the definition to conform to legal precepts.definition to conform to legal precepts.

Why the Law Must Squelch the L-Why the Law Must Squelch the L-Value.Value.

The legal institution paints itself as an arbiter of The legal institution paints itself as an arbiter of truth, rendering decisions that are absolute and truth, rendering decisions that are absolute and measured in order to maintain its power over the measured in order to maintain its power over the public. public. The order that law imposes upon the social The order that law imposes upon the social structure breaks down in the face of the structure breaks down in the face of the unknown. unknown. Legal discourse must necessarily transmute Legal discourse must necessarily transmute general signs into legal symbols for the sake of general signs into legal symbols for the sake of maintaining power over the populace. maintaining power over the populace.

ConsequencesConsequences

Jacques LacanJacques Lacan– PsychoanalystPsychoanalyst– PsychiatristPsychiatrist– LinguistLinguist

The Master DiscourseThe Master Discourse

Master signifier = Master signifier = judge (or lawyer? or judge (or lawyer? or E.J. Cyran?)E.J. Cyran?)

Master DiscourseMaster Discourse

A dynamic where a master signifier, who is A dynamic where a master signifier, who is a dominating party, imposes a version of a dominating party, imposes a version of events upon a secondary signifier such events upon a secondary signifier such that the secondary signifier’s version of that the secondary signifier’s version of events becomes the master signifier’s events becomes the master signifier’s version of eventsversion of events– The master dominates the slave, who must The master dominates the slave, who must

abide by the master’s definition or be abide by the master’s definition or be subjected to the lashsubjected to the lash

– Sound familiar?Sound familiar?

The Law as a Master DiscourseThe Law as a Master Discourse

If a perpetrator attempts to put forth a conception of his If a perpetrator attempts to put forth a conception of his crime that is different than that of the legal community, crime that is different than that of the legal community, his version will not be accepted and he will be punished. his version will not be accepted and he will be punished. Judges (and juries), who are the real master-signifiers, Judges (and juries), who are the real master-signifiers, create symbols using analytic-legal discourse to decide create symbols using analytic-legal discourse to decide cases brought before them and punish those whose cases brought before them and punish those whose actions do not conform to the rules of the legal actions do not conform to the rules of the legal institution. institution. Lawyers, the pseudo-master-signifiers, also use analytic-Lawyers, the pseudo-master-signifiers, also use analytic-legal reasoning to compel the judge or jury to accept legal reasoning to compel the judge or jury to accept their interpretation as the singular interpretation, guilty or their interpretation as the singular interpretation, guilty or not-guilty. not-guilty.

One Example of How Law is a One Example of How Law is a Master DiscourseMaster Discourse

In general discourse the idea of “theft” can take on a In general discourse the idea of “theft” can take on a number of connotations.number of connotations.– ““Theft” could simply be someone taking something that is yours Theft” could simply be someone taking something that is yours

even though you have no claim to it, it could be someone who even though you have no claim to it, it could be someone who simply wins something by chance, and so forth. simply wins something by chance, and so forth.

However, once the event called “theft” in the general However, once the event called “theft” in the general discourse is subjected to the legal process, like through discourse is subjected to the legal process, like through the Pennsylvania statute above, the meaning of “theft” is the Pennsylvania statute above, the meaning of “theft” is condensed into only one interpretation. condensed into only one interpretation. – The “theft” that at one time held several meanings now only has The “theft” that at one time held several meanings now only has

one for the purposes of general discourse. one for the purposes of general discourse. – Think about law school bantering.Think about law school bantering.

The HopeThe Hope

As long as the interpreter recognizes the law as As long as the interpreter recognizes the law as wielding institutional, not actual, power over wielding institutional, not actual, power over signs and that the law is forced to conform to its signs and that the law is forced to conform to its own axioms, the interpreter is free to recognize own axioms, the interpreter is free to recognize legality as an interpretant of a sign and its legality as an interpretant of a sign and its related object. related object. Even though the law cannot allow itself to Even though the law cannot allow itself to recognize interpretants outside of its institutional recognize interpretants outside of its institutional boundaries, the individual can. boundaries, the individual can. Perhaps the individual’s actions must conform to Perhaps the individual’s actions must conform to legal standards to avoid punishment, but the legal standards to avoid punishment, but the mind does not. mind does not.