Jon, Gary, Edwina, List JAS said:
* Any individual event of semiosis consists in an individual dynamical object determining an individual sign token to determine an individual dynamical interpretant, and these are the three correlates of a degenerate triadic relation. * Such events are governed (not deterministically dictated) by the genuine triadic relation whose three correlates are the sign itself (not any one instance thereof), its dynamical object, and its final interpretant. Jon, I appreciate this bullet point styled post regarding determination qua the genuine and degenerate. I would merely ask this. If I accept the above, and assume the FI is in fact something which does exist, then surely such events would be somewhat deterministically dictated by the truth of whatever an object is (rather necessarily) in the very long-run (ideal or no) wherein the FI, understood now as possible, regardless of realization, and thus we move into metaphysics (with nuance)... — to simplify, there is an object F which is fire, and the truth of that object exists, also, whatever such truth is. Insofar as said truth exists, somewhat metaphysically, it is (in semeiotic here) by its FI, which surely implies a relative degree of determinstic necessity within one's calculus? The truth of any object, through whatever possible/extant sign series, if it exists, must be such that it is either in reference to the object or else to the process/mechanism of reasoning/representation which presents said object(s) --or, indeed, a blend of both. The point here is that if one accepts this (and I am using most terms here as is found outside your own use of Peircean language), then one must posit determinism??? The truth of any object, then, now invoking infinite inquiry, is such that the determination of said meanings (ad infinitum) would, in ideal, yield whatever is said truth... (presupposing that such a truth does in fact exist, and, qua Peirce, the only access as such, categorically, to it, here, is by FI). Messy, as usual, but the gist of my basic thesis is that the FI if we take it seriously rather does presuppose truth in the big T sense of term regarding either things/relations of things/both... and, insofar as this is realized, it is literally a matter of "determination" (and such a truth seems here rather monotheistic insofar as it would be the only result possible for all to agree on if conditions existed which allowed for such determination, collective, to occur). Best Jack ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:22 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trichotomies, Correlates, and Relations (was Indexicality and Speculative Grammar) Gary R., List: I appreciate and agree with your additional comments in both posts today. Summarizing my own understanding ... * We prescind each sign with its object and its interpretant from the real and continuous process of semiosis, such that these are artifacts of analysis. * According to Peirce, any genuine triadic relation is not reducible to the three dyadic relations that it involves, while any degenerate triadic relation is so reducible. * The trichotomy for the sign's dyadic relation with its interpretant in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy is identical to the one for the sign's dyadic relation with its final interpretant in his later taxonomies. * The final interpretant is the ideal effect of the sign (would-be, genuine 3ns), while a dynamical interpretant is any actual effect of the sign (2ns of 3ns), and the immediate interpretant is its range of possible effects (may-be, 1ns of 3ns). * The final interpretant is "final" in the sense of a final cause (telos), not the temporally last member of a series; we aim to conform all our dynamical interpretants of signs to their final interpretants, which is why logic as semeiotic is a normative science. * Any individual event of semiosis consists in an individual dynamical object determining an individual sign token to determine an individual dynamical interpretant, and these are the three correlates of a degenerate triadic relation. * Such events are governed (not deterministically dictated) by the genuine triadic relation whose three correlates are the sign itself (not any one instance thereof), its dynamical object, and its final interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:03 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Helmut, Jon, List, Peirce offers this definition of 'trichotomic' in an unpublished three page type-script written just after "A Guess at the Riddle" in early 1888 (EP1: 280-284). Nathan Houser suggests that it was written "probably for oral presentation." TRICHOTOMIC is the art of making three-fold divisions. Such division depends on the conceptions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd [that is, 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, something which becomes obvious in the next three sentences GR]. First is the beginning, that which is fresh, original, spontaneous, free. Second is that which is determined, terminated, ended, correlative, object, necessitate, reading. Third is the medium, becoming, developing, bringing about. EP1: 280 But this is looking at each category separately and abstractly in terms of its individual 'character' or 'mode of being'. Once the three categories are involved in semiosis their co-relations take on a vital character (as Peirce elsewhere explains). Each category is not only a mode of being but also a way of relating or being related. To speak of correlates is to say that each category implies or involves a corresponding kind of relational structure. So, in semeiotics, and as Jon wrote: "they are in a genuine triadic relation with the sign, which involves their respective dyadic relations but is not reducible to them." Perhaps it would be helpful to look at semiosis in light of the vector of determination where 2ns determines 1ns which in turn determines 3ns (in Peirce logical sense of 'is constrained by', not 'determined by efficient causation'). So, the object determines the sign which determines the interpretant, that is, the sign's meaning. I think it was Tom Short who very helpfully said that the object gives the sign its aboutness, and the sign gives the interpretant sign its meaning. Compare this with Time which follows the same vector: the past determines the present which in turn determines the future (again 'determines' should not be interpreted as efficient causation). Now it is possible to prescind a tripartite moment from the flow of time. But, firstly, prescision is but a kind of abstraction and, secondly, lived time is not experienced as three discrete instants (the instant being but a mathematical abstraction according to Peirce). Nonetheless, we do have a vital sense of the recent past and an anticipation of the future. As with Time, we can prescind some discrete object -> sign -> interpretent from the semiosic flow for some analytical purpose just as we can prescind some single moment from the ongoing flow of time. But that again would only be for the purpose of a discrete analysis. For just as the present melds into the future, so does the sign meld into its interpretant sign (and the semiosis continues in much the same way as the flow of time does). Best, Gary R
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
