List: The trouble I have with comments on the list about ‘prescinding the triadic sign’ from the ‘continuous semiosis’ – such that the results are ‘artifacts of analysis’…is that this is a specifically Observer dependent and intellectual action.
My view is that semiosis is the basic operation/process generating all matter in the universe and has no need of any observer or intellectual precision. As Peirce said –‘the entire universe…is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs 7.549ff. That is- as I see it, this semiosis function operates without human involvement but is a constant semiosic interaction of forms of matter with other forms of matter within the triadic process and the three categories. Specifically, to achieve this productive result, its format is triadic: By semiosis “I mean..an action or influence,which is or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object and its interpretant” 5.484 And again, these actions also operate within the modal natures of the three categories. That’s all that is needed. As I understand it - The basic operational everyday triad is the DO-S/R-DI. As Peirce notes, ‘It is not to be supposed that upon every presentation of a sign, capable of producing a logical interpretant, such interpretant is actually produced” 5.489, And I’d say the most common basic processes are dicent indexical and dicent symbols. [Note: the logical interpretant is a synonym of the final interpretant] For example – when two hydrogen and one oxygen atom as DOs, combine, according to the chemical habits [of S/R] and form a DI a Dynamic interpretant of a water molecule – ‘this is “the actual effect which the Sign, as a Sign, really determines. 1906.4.536. This is the current situation; This is not the Final Interpretant For example, when a frog interacts with a DO [ an insect] – the process is, as I see it: DO-S/R-DI, where the frog, as the sign-vehicle containing the S/R interacts with the DO, the insect, and..eats it as food ie as the Dynamic Interpretant – there is no final interpretant involved…and indeed, Peirce was quite clear on this- there is rarely a FI involved. See 8.315 I would note that in the above cases, the dynamic Interpretants would almost all, be in the mode of Secondness [2-2, 2-1] as individual indexical modes of the semiosic process. A final interpretant is, by definition, almost always in the mode of Thirdness and would take a more complex process to be produced than in the above examples. [See Robert Marty’s Lattice]. And would be, naturally less common, as this mode cannot be subject to constant intrusion on its stability. Edwina > On Oct 20, 2025, at 6:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
