Jon Alen, I do not even need to read te second and third alinea of your post. Of course Short is right in this view. But that is trivial and not in conflict with my statement. It simply follows from the difference in viewpoint: type vs process.
And to be frank I think it is better to leave your 'explanation' in the 2nd and 3th alinea undiscussed in all detail. I restrict myself to the first sentence, look at the boldened text. The immediate interpretant is whatever a sign type possibly could signify within the system of signs to which it belongs, Question 1: Do you claim this (within, etc) to be Peirces addition? Question 2: How do you delineate this system for any given sign? Question 3: The dynamical interpretant that eventually follows a sign, is this one of the possibilities contained in the immediate interpretant, or can it be altogether different? Best, Auke Op 24 mei 2020 om 2:49 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: Auke, List: I agree that the relationship between the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants and emotional/energetic/logical interpretants has been the subject of considerable and ongoing debate. As we discussed recently, I subscribe to the view that the two sets of terms are orthogonal to each other, as follows. The immediate interpretant is whatever a sign type possibly could signify within the system of signs to which it belongs, the dynamical interpretant is whatever a sign token actually does signify on an individual occasion, and the final interpretant is whatever a sign itself necessarily would signify under ideal circumstances. An emotional interpretant is one that is in the universe of possibles as a feeling, an energetic interpretant is one that is in the universe of existents as an exertion, and a logical interpretant is one that is in the universe of necessitants as a further sign (cf. CP 4.536, 1906). Hence the immediate interpretant is a range of possible feelings, exertions, or signs; the dynamical interpretant is an actual feeling, exertion, or sign; and the final interpretant is a habit of feeling (association), a habit of conduct (belief), or a habit-change (persuasion). Every energetic interpretant (2ns) involves an emotional interpretant (1ns), and every logical interpretant (3ns) involves both an energetic interpretant (2ns) and an emotional interpretant (1ns). An iconic sign (1ns) can only determine an emotional interpretant (1ns) , while only a symbolic sign (3ns) can determine a logical interpretant (3ns), although it might determine merely an energetic interpretant (2ns) and/or an emotional interpretant (1ns). Likewise, an indexical sign (2ns) can determine an energetic interpretant (2ns) but might determine merely an emotional interpretant (1ns). A sign that determines merely an emotional interpretant (1ns) can only be a term (1ns), while a proposition (2ns) always determines at least an energetic interpretant (2ns) and an argument (3ns) always determines a logical interpretant (3ns). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM < a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: Edwina, list, That is a debated issue. Bergman did summarize the main positions: Fitzgerald, Short and Zeman. In my opinion the logical interpretant of the emotional, energetic, logical sequence is a placeholder for the other triplet. Van Driel was the first to write this, but without argumentation and alas in a Dutch language dissertation. The energetic in my opinion must also be looked at as a placeholder for the icon (mental interpretant) and sinsign (the here and now of the icon) aspect respectively. i didn't however find direct evidence for this. Auke Op 23 mei 2020 om 19:27 schreef Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca mailto:tabor...@primus.ca >: As a side note - there's an interesting paper, by Lucia Santaella-Braga, on 'Methodeutics; the liveliest branch of semiotics'. in Semiotica 124[-3/4]. 1999. p 377-395, in which, among other things [she's reviewing a book by Liszka] she outlines the full nature of the Interpretants, moving into an examination of 8.344-76, where she rejects that the terms of ' immediate, dynamical and logical/final are synonymous with 'emotional, energetic and logical. See also 'Semiotica' 1996, 'Semiotics in times of maturity. Semiotica 108 [1/2]; 129-155 where she discusses them in detail. Edwina _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
