Helmut, List: I will answer your second question first, then come back to your first question.
HR: What is a trichotomy? Is it both about specification/classification, and composition? In Peirce's semeiotic, a trichotomy is for classification, not composition. As used for classifying signs, it is a division according to whether a specific correlate or relation falls under the category of 1ns/2ns/3ns (1903) or belongs in the corresponding 1st/2nd/3rd universe whose constituents are possibles/existents/necessitants (1908). HR: why is there so much emphasis put on the distinction between a correlate (object, interpretant) and the relation between the sign and each of both? Because when classifying signs, there are *different *trichotomies for the correlates and their relations. A sign is a qualisign/sinsign/legisign (later tone/token/type) according to the mode of apprehension of the sign itself (S). It is an abstractive/concretive/collective according to the mode of being of the dynamical object *itself* (Od), but an icon/index/symbol according to its dyadic *relation *with its dynamical object (Od-S). It is a gratific/actuous/temperative according to the purpose of the final interpretant *itself* (If), but a rheme/dicisign/argument (later seme/pheme/delome) according to its dyadic *relation* with its final interpretant (S-If). When arranging the trichotomies in the proper logical order, Peirce places the Od-S trichotomy *after *the S trichotomy (1903), but the Od trichotomy *before* the S trichotomy (1908). He also places the S-If trichotomy after the Od-S trichotomy (1903), and the If trichotomy after the S trichotomy (1908). HR: I think, the object and the interpretant are already relations with the sign: The object (at least the immediate, but I think, both parts) doesn't exist, if it isn't denoted by, and determines the sign. The interpretant is already determined by the sign, and without an anticipated interpretant, the sign would not exist. The object and interpretant are correlates, not relations; they are *in *a genuine triadic relation with the sign, which *involves *their respective dyadic relations but is not reducible to them. As I have said many times before, I understand semiosis to be a *continuous *process; so when we pick out any *individual *sign, we are *prescinding *it from that flow, and we must also then identify *its *object and *its *interpretant. In that sense, you are correct that something does not *serve *as a dynamical object apart from the signs that it determines. Moreover, a sign might not have any *actual *(dynamical) interpretants, but it always has *possible *(immediate) and *ideal *(final) interpretants. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 2:47 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Robert, List, > > I have two questions, the first is, why is there so much emphasis put on > the distinction between a correlate (object, interpretant) and the relation > between the sign and each of both? I think, the object and the interpretant > are already relations with the sign: The object (at least the immediate, > but I think, both parts) doesn´t exist, if it isn´t denoted by, and > determines the sign. The interpretant is already determined by the sign, > and without an anticipated interpretant, the sign would not exist. This > could be explained this more explicitly, by mentioning the two parts of the > object, and the three of the interpretant, but my point works anyway > already so, I think. > My second question is: What is a trichotomy? Is it both about > specification/classification, and composition? From the word root (to cut > something into three pieces) I would say, it only is about composition, > e.g. for sign, object, interpretant. But not for classification, like > rheme, dicent, argument. Because there it is not about parts of something, > but about "either-or" classes. "Either-or" means, these items already are > apart, you cannot cut something into three pieces here. Ok, you can do this > with your mind, but then you don´t cut the real -or imagined- thing apart, > not even prescindingly, but virtually e.g. a sheet of paper, on which > classes are written. Then you have a trichotomy of paper, but not of the > interpretant (aka(?) its relation with the sign). > > Best, Helmut >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
