Hugo, List: As I see it, you are not so much moving beyond Peirce's "standard model" as abandoning it for a completely different model. Far be it from me to block the way of inquiry, but I believe that Peirce was on the right track in most cases, especially in his theory of signs, so I cannot help thinking that departing from the groundwork that he laid instead of building upon it is a mistake. Nevertheless, I wish you well as your work continues. In case you are interested, my paper on "Semiosic Synechism" ( https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSSA-42.pdf) outlines my further explication of Peirce's thought, mostly by quoting his own words.
Regards, Jon On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 4:00 AM Hugo F. Alrøe <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > Thank you for your comments. You very precisely describe what I call the > standard model of Peircean semiotics. In the paper I argue why we need to > move beyond the standard model, and I show how we can do it. I am aware > that these ideas are somewhat controversial. However, as I write in the > paper, my aim here is not to show how Peirce thought, but how Peirce’s work > can be used to solve contemporary problems in semiotics. > > Thank you for pointing out that Peirce's tone, token, type trichotomy > *replaces > *the division of the sign into qualisign, sinsign, and legisign in his > later work. I will look into that. > > Best, > Hugo > > Den man. 16. jun. 2025 kl. 17.58 skrev Jon Alan Schmidt < > [email protected]>: > >> Hugo, List: >> >> Thank you for sharing a link to your paper, along with its abstract, and >> for including a reference to my own paper on Peirce's interpretant >> trichotomies. I am not in a position to digest it fully right now, but I >> must confess that my initial assessment is that it exhibits a serious >> misunderstanding of semiotics in general and Peirce's doctrine of signs in >> particular. For one thing, the division of the sign into immediate and >> dynamic correlates is obviously incompatible with his careful phaneroscopic >> analysis establishing that any *one *sign has *two *objects and *three >> *interpretants. >> The "really efficient sign" (p. 16) in any *actual *event of semiosis is >> not "the dynamical sign," it is a sign *token *as distinguished from a *tone >> *or a *type *in Peirce's late taxonomies (replacing >> qualisign/sinsign/legisign). For another, the *directionality *of >> semiosis--from the object through the sign toward the interpretant--is >> absolutely fundamental, as spelled out in what I consider to be Peirce's >> clearest definition, which you quote on pp. 8-9. >> >> CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, >> which mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both >> determined by the object *relatively to the interpretant*, and >> determines the interpretant *in reference to the object*, in such wise >> as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the object through the >> mediation of this "sign." The object and the interpretant are thus merely >> the two correlates of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other >> consequent of the sign. (EP 2:410, 1907) >> >> >> You claim that this is "just one type of sign action" (p. 18), but as >> Peirce says here and throughout his relevant writings, it is in fact the >> *only >> *type of sign action. Accordingly, in *any *genuine triadic relation of >> mediation, the source is the object, the mediator is the sign, and the >> outcome is the interpretant. Your five other "ways of mediation" confuse >> not only this terminology, but also the underlying concepts. That which >> mediates is *always *the sign, *never *the object or interpretant, >> although one or both of these might likewise *be *a sign with *its own* >> object and interpretant. The object *always *determines the sign *to >> *determine >> the interpretant, *never *any other arrangement. In fact, after giving >> the quoted definition, Peirce goes on to reiterate that "the *essential >> *difference >> there is between the nature of an object and that of an interpretant ... is >> that the former antecedes, while the latter succeeds the sign" (ibid., >> emphasis mine)--the object *always *antecedes the sign, and the >> interpretant *always *succeeds the sign. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 4:16 AM Hugo F. Alrøe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> List, Cécile >>> >>> The paper on the six types of sign action that I mentioned on the list a >>> little while ago has now been published online in Semiotica. The paper is >>> open access, and I have included a link and the abstract below. >>> >>> As I write in the paper, I am thankful for inspiration from Peirce-L >>> over the years and in particular for the spiral-shaped drawing of the >>> triadic sign in semiosis provided by Cécile Cosculluela in the thread >>> “Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce,” January 2024, which >>> inspired my depiction of a "mediating representation" in the paper. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Hugo >>> >>> Alrøe, Hugo F. (2025) The six types of sign action. Semiotica. >>> https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2024-0112 >>> >>> Abstract >>> The Peircean doctrine of signs is incomplete. This paper rethinks the >>> standard model of sign action to provide a common framework for analyzing >>> all the different kinds of semiotic processes, including the workings of >>> thinking creatures, sentient beings, single cell organisms, social systems, >>> and sciences. Through a detailed theoretical analysis, the paper shows how >>> we can separate *mediation *(featuring the steps: source, mediator, and >>> outcome) from *representation* (featuring the conventional sign >>> correlates: object, sign, and interpretant) in Peircean semiotics and >>> combine the two to establish a general model of sign action. This leads to >>> the fundamental and, in a Peircean context, somewhat controversial ideas >>> that there are not two but three dynamical sign correlates and, notably, >>> that there is not one direction of mediation in the sign triad, but six >>> directions, which constitute six fundamental types of sign action: >>> *perceiving*, *acting*, *interpreting*, *expressing*, *sensing*, and >>> *reacting*. The sixfold model of sign action is a step toward a general >>> theory of semiosis, it promises to reconcile the split in biosemiotics, and >>> it provides a coherent semiotic foundation for a general theory of >>> observation in science. Chiefly, it offers a workable framework for >>> semiotics. >>> >>> -- >>> Hugo F. Alrøe, PhD >>> Email: hugo.f.alroe \at/ gmail.com >>> Web: hugo.alroe.dk >>> >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
