Helmut, List: A correlate cannot *be *a relation, a correlate is *in *a relation. A dyadic relation has two correlates, while a triadic relation has three correlates and *involves *three dyadic relations between the different pairs of those three correlates; a *genuine *triadic relation is not *reducible *to those three dyadic relations. For the genuine triadic relation of representing or (more generally) mediating, there is no *separate *trichotomy for the *object's *dyadic relation with the interpretant, since it is always the same as the *sign's *dyadic relation with the interpretant. The interpretant itself is thus a correlate, not a relation--it *is *the meaning of the sign, not "a relation of a sign and a meaning"--and again, the sign's relation with its interpretant is dyadic, not triadic.
Phaneroscopic analysis of the *genuine *triadic relation of representing/mediating reveals that every one sign has two objects and three interpretants, for a total of six correlates. Its *genuine *correlates are the sign itself, its dynamical object, and its final interpretant--what Peirce simply calls the sign, its object, and its interpretant in 1903. In addition, a dynamical interpretant is any *actual *effect of a sign *token *in an individual *event *of semiosis, so there is a separate trichotomy for that *external *dyadic relation; however, there is no separate trichotomy for the *degenerate *triadic relation of the sign token with its dynamical object and dynamical interpretant, since it is *reducible *to the dyadic relations that it involves. The immediate object and immediate interpretant are both *internal *to the sign, which is why there are no separate trichotomies for their *degenerate *dyadic relations. Regards, Jon On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 10:15 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > thank you for clarifying "trichotomy". So "S-O-I" is not one (it is > compositional). My other point was: I think, regarding e.g. the > interpretant for a correlate is not prescinding it from its > relation-nature, because a correlate can be a relation. I think (right? > false?) that the interpretant is a relation of a sign and a meaning, and > the relation is, that it is the sign´s meaning. The relation between the > interpretant and the sign is a triadic relation (sign, sign, meaning), that > equals the dyad (sign, meaning), which again is the interpretant. But I > dont know. if this is mathematically correct: (A,A,B) = (A,B)? When I have > a relation with another man, which is the fact, that I owe him ten dollars, > then the relation between me and this fact is again the fact, that I owe > him ten dollars. > > Best, Helmut > 19. Oktober 2025 um 02:50 > "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > 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.
