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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
