Our own Peircean-Nevillean formulation of the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative

describes our local semiotic environs and seems to have its macro-cosmic-level equivalent, which, in more classical terms, would be that the axiological mediates between the cosmological and the ontological to effect the teleological. Put alternatively, there is some correspondence between the classical accounts of causation, such as in the distinctions drawn between instrumental causation, efficient causation, material causation, formal causation and final causation, all of which, interestingly, have led to individual proofs of God as philosophers and theologians grappled with problems of infinite regression, circular referentiality, causal disjunction and similar paradoxes. For example, C.S. Lewis advanced a moral argument based on axiological insights. Aquinas, Anselm and others authored other proofs. For example, we have also been presented with various cosmological arguments (to stop an infinite regress of efficient causes), ontological arguments (to address various modal distinctions between this material or substance versus that, such as the necessary or self-subsisting versus the contingent), and teleological arguments (the design inference or final causation). We have very roughly associated in this equivalency, then, the normative with instrumental causation and the axiological (since the instrumental is associated with extrinsic values), the descriptive with material and efficient causation and the cosmological (since this perspective has been appropriated positivistically by empirical science, even to the exclusion of other types of causation), the interpretive with formal causation and the ontological (since this is the perspective "relegated" to metaphysics), and the evaluative with final causation and the teleological (since these ultimate concerns are more so associated with the intrinsic values and final causes of the Creator Spirit). Another point is to suggest that our existential, moral, and axiological orientations (normatively experienced) derive from but are irreducible to our cosmological (scientific) and ontological (metaphysical) constitutedness and correspond and give shape to our theological imperatives (a telic design we awaken to through ongoing conversion). In short, our movement from what we are (the cosmological and ontological) to what we will become (the teleological) is mediated by what we ought to be (the axiological). In this approach, form does not describe the structure of identities, but, rather, the relations between identities, where formal causes meld with the material, efficient, instrumental and final. As such, a formal cause refers to a top-down donation of initial, boundary and limit conditions (constraints) by an emergentist system to an emergent identity, while a final cause refers to a top-down donation of autopoiesis, agency & autonomy (freedom) by an emergentist system to an emergent identity, which is nonstrict and temporally asymmetrical (internally related to its past but externally related to its future), precisely due to ongoing donative relations (creatio continua) between emergent indentities, which can then simultaneously be both de novo emergent identities as well as probabilities of identities yet to emerge (with concommitant intrinsic values that accrete through time).
1

This is not a robustly metaphysical account (relying on any given root metaphor) but a vague phenomenological approach that employs an emergentist perspective.