Jon: > On May 16, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Second, I have never suggested that the final interpretant "functions BEFORE" > the immediate and dynamical interpretants. What I have argued is that the > final interpretant logically determines the dynamical interpretant, such that > a sign that would produce a feeling under ideal circumstances can only > actually produce a feeling, while only a sign that would produce a further > sign under ideal circumstances can actually produce a further sign. > Moreover, I have explicitly and repeatedly denied that this has anything > whatsoever to do with the temporal sequence of these interpretants.
I concur with these assertions. The proof theory of chemistry emerges from the necessity of a coherent set of final interpretants that align the molecular weights with the molecular formula and molecular structures with the existential signs (sin-signs). Bedrocks manifest themselves. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
