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 Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
