Edwina, List: How about that! I will even accept your amendment, since every Dynamic Interpretant is a distinct occurrence.
Thanks, Jon On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> 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 >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
