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 <[email protected]>: > > 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 > > > > > > On Sat 23/05/20 4:03 AM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent: > > > > Jon, List, > > > > Peirce is not necessarily always right, is he? " For evolution is > > nothing more nor less than the working out of a definite end", is theism > > and speculation, isn´t it? One may also assume, that evolution is > > continuous adaption without an end. And when he wrote "A final cause may be > > conceived to operate without having been the purpose of any mind", had he > > forgotten then, that he had claimed that the universe has a mind? If it > > has, why should it pursue its own end? I think doomsdayism is always > > theistic speculation. The big chill too, like the big bang, is not > > scientifically proven. > > I think, that evolution itself has a mind, though working quite > > slowly. > > A better example for final cause I see in the needs of organisms, > > who pursue an end to these needs. Or their DNA does it for them, which is a > > memory of the mind of evolution of their species. Organisms who have brains > > apply a third kind of causation, volitional or example causation: They > > remember or anticipate something they want to get. > > These three kinds of causation are related by analogy to the three > > kinds of inference. > > > > Best, > > > > Helmut > > > > > > > > > > 23. Mai 2020 um 04:14 Uhr > > "Jon Alan Schmidt" > > wrote: </[email protected]> > > Robert, List: > > > > Thanks for providing this creative answer to some of my > > questions, which I have been pondering carefully. It confirms that we have > > very different theories about semeiosis, and apparently very different > > interpretations of Peirce's writings on that subject. For one thing, he > > explicitly and repeatedly affirms the reality of final causes, and even > > points to biological evolution as a paradigmatic manifestation of them. > > > > > > > > > CSP: Perhaps, since phrases retain their > > sway over men's minds long after their meaning has evaporated, it may be > > that some reader, even at this day, remains imbued with the old notion that > > there are no final causes in nature; in which case, natural selection, and > > every form of evolution, would be false. For evolution is nothing more nor > > less than the working out of a definite end. A final cause may be conceived > > to operate without having been the purpose of any mind ... but that > > definite ends are worked out none of us today any longer deny. Our eyes > > have been opened; and the evidence is too overwhelming. (CP 1.204, 1902) > > > > > > > > > > Notice that for Peirce final causes do not entail agency, > > theistic or otherwise. He confirms this later in the same manuscript. > > > > > > > > > CSP: It is, as I was saying, a > > widespread error to think that a "final cause" is necessarily a purpose. A > > purpose is merely that form of final cause which is most familiar to our > > experience. (CP 1.211) > > > > > > > > > > However, I will not belabor that point any further. Instead, for > > comparison I will try to spell out my own semeiotic analysis of my previous > > post, hopefully sometime this weekend. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM robert marty < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jon Alan, List > > > > > > > > > I'd rather we stay on the list. I have clues that suggest > > > that people are interested; if some are embarrassed they have no > > > obligation ... > > > > > > Today I will answer your questions using another rhetorical > > > means, the parable ... > > > > > > "A parable is a succinct, didactic > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didacticism story, in prose > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose or verse > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_(poetry) , that illustrates one or > > > more instructive lessons or principles" > > > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable ) ... > > > > > > I assure you, it will be prose ... > > > > > > > > > > > > On 05/20/20 at a certain time, in the mind of a person > > > living in Olathe, Kansas,USA, (the sender), a person who has > > > well-established and known ideas from the list on the final causes, > > > effective causes, determinations, ... a subjective theory labelled "JAS" > > > (Od) is formed the idea of addressing questions to a member of the list > > > in particular and also to the list (the receiver, the receivers)… he > > > imagines a series of questions (Oi) that are necessarily determined by > > > his theory which they carry "in hollow" the mark ... he writes them and > > > publishes them (S) … its main receiver (his first name is an index > > > perceived first) perceives this text ... in the course of his reading his > > > mind is inhabited by more or less blurred mnemonic reminders of a large > > > number of objects of previous discussions, more or less interconnected, > > > mixed - as with each of the messages he received from the same sender - > > > with this following information (index) which never ceased to amaze him: > > > " Professional Engineer, Philosopher Amateur, Lutheran Layman". All this > > > has formed in his mind a kind of "interpretation guide" from which he > > > apprehends the content of the messages received from this sender, a set > > > to which is added the one to which I answer by the parable - under > > > construction before my eyes and soon under yours, i e of all those who > > > will perceive it (read it). This receiver has therefore, with more or > > > less accuracy, conceptualized this set. He finds himself obliged, simply > > > to have read this injunctive message, in which the sender has somehow " > > > printed his mark", to modify or not his uncertain conceptualization in > > > which dominates the idea of "predestination" that his studies and > > > readings have allowed him to associate with Lutheranism (Calvinism too) > > > and in general protestantism: It's (If) … in immediate reaction in his > > > mind is recalled his own subjective theory which contains his long-held > > > opinions on these issues (Ie). He acquired them early by reading Jacques > > > Monod's 1965 Nobel Prize book ," Hasard and Necessity," later reinforced > > > by reading René Thom's book, Medall Field of Mathematics (1958), entitled > > > " Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, W. A. Benjamin, (1972) ". After > > > a quick confrontation between the two theories for a possible change in > > > the way he considers the questions of the final causes and the efficient > > > causes, he decides not to modify one iota and to communicate this > > > decision to the person who asked it and to the list (Iex) in the > > > explicit form that here: "In his world of signs, determinations are > > > efficient causes and there is no need to incorporate final causes that > > > his own subjective theory and underlying atheism exclude.". > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Robert (the receiver) > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?space?-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
