BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list - we agree on something! I agree with your outline of the
three Interpretants!
Although I would quibble with the definition of the Final
Interpretant as " the habitual effect that a Sign would produce;
e.g., through repetition of a particular Dynamic Interpretant." I
vew the Final Interpretant as the generalities [which has
similarities, I supposed, to your 'habitual effect']....but I would
say 'through repetition of MULTIPLE Dynamic Interpretants'. That is,
I view the Final Interpretant as an effect of many semiosic processes.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Fri 31/03/17 3:30 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Helmut, List:
I agree that "habit" is broader for Peirce than "a gradual
approximation process."
"Effete" is just an antiquated synonym for "weak" or "degenerate."
Of course, Peirce elsewhere referred to matter as "partially deadened
mind," which gets at the same basic idea.
There are different notions about what the Immediate, Dynamic, and
Final Interpretants are, which obviously affects what else they
might be. My current working theory is that the Immediate
Interpretant is a range of possible effects that a Sign may produce,
the Dynamic Interpretant is any actual effect that a Sign does
produce, and the Final Interpretant is the habitual effect that a
Sign would produce; e.g., through repetition of a particular Dynamic
Interpretant. With these definitions, they would not really be
amenable to your suggestions.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
List,Jeffrey, I too had problems with that. Now I think, that Peirce
uses the term "habit" in a broader sense: Usually, when I hear or read
"habit" I think of a gradual approximation process. This cannot be the
case with conservation of energy, because exact conservation cannot be
approached: If in all reactions, physical and chemical, only a little
energy was lost or won, then the universe would freeze or explode in
an instant, I guess. A similar problem is the fine tunedness of
constants. But Peircean habit also may be saltatory, and includes
emergences, I guess. "Effete" sounds a bit pejatorive to me, I rather
think of matter as condensed or precipitated mind, but "effete" I
accept for correct of course. Edwina, you wrote, that a dynamical
interpretant of one sign may work as a dynamical object for another.
Do you think, that also an immediate interpretant and a final one may
become a dynamical object? My guess is, that immediate interpretants
become concepts, dynamical interpretants become material things, and
final interpretants become topics that have happened or been in the
past (all for DynObjs). Best,Helmut
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
