Gary R., List: GR: All semiosis arises through this irreducible triadic form.
Another quibble--in my view, semiosis does not *arise *(bottom-up) through this irreducible triadic form, it *manifests *(top-down) in this irreducible triadic form whenever we *prescind *an individual sign from the real and continuous process, artificially marking it off from other signs that remain indefinite, and then identify *its *twofold object and *its *threefold interpretant. As I see it, our "extraction" of those distinct correlates as artifacts of analysis is the *only *sense in which sign/object/interpretant are *sequentially *first/second/third--not within semiosis *itself*, nor in arranging the different correlate trichotomies for sign classification, since the temporal and logical sequence in those cases (respectively) is always object-sign-interpretant. Others will no doubt persist in disagreeing with all this. Today I came across another relevant quotation from Peirce that I thought would be worth mentioning here--"A fact concerning two subjects is a dual character or relation; but a relation which is a mere combination of two independent facts concerning the two subjects may be called *degenerate*, just as two lines are called a degenerate conic. In like manner a plural character or conjoint relation is to be called degenerate if it is a mere compound of dual characters" (CP 3.359, 1885). He immediately proceeds to discuss signs as a paradigmatic example--a symbol (here called a "token") is in a genuine triadic relation (here "triple relation") with its object and interpretant (here "a mind"), an index is in a degenerate triadic relation where its dyadic relation (here "dual relation") with its object is genuine, and an icon is in a degenerate triadic relation where its dyadic relation with its object is also degenerate (3.360-2). Peirce presents essentially the same analysis 16 years later (EP 2:305-8, 1901), still discussing only the dyadic sign-object relation. However, over the ensuing years, he expands his speculative grammar with two more trichotomies, for the sign itself and the sign's dyadic relation with its interpretant (1903); and then seven more trichotomies, for the two objects, three interpretants, and two additional external relations (1904-8). Accordingly, although Peirce never puts it this way, I maintain that every sign *in itself* is a symbolic type that stands in a *genuine *triadic relation with its dynamical object and its *final *interpretant, which is not reducible to its constituent dyadic relations; while every *instance *of a sign is an indexical token that stands in a *degenerate *triadic relation with its dynamical object and some *dynamical *interpretant, which is so reducible. Again, I acknowledge that others disagree. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:43 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > Since there has been some discussion regarding genuine triadic relations, > I quickly looked up a few (of the many) Peirce references to that relation. > For Peirce, a genuine triadic relation is the logical and metaphysical mark > or stamp of meaning. It is the structure through which 3ns -- mediation, > generality, continuity -- acts in the universe. All semiosis arises through > this irreducible triadic form. > > Here are some places where Peirce discusses the genuine triadic relation > and and a couple referencing the degenerate triadic relation (I checked > some but not all of the sources); all but one concern semiosis as such; the > other is the famous quotation in which Peirce notes that "The relation of > giving is a genuine triadic relation:" > > (1903, Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic) > > “A genuine triadic relation cannot be resolved into any combination of > dyadic relations. For example, the relation of sign to its object and its > interpretant is genuinely triadic, since if you take away any one of the > three, the relation ceases to exist.” 1.345 > > “The relation of giving is a genuine triadic relation, for it involves a > giver, a gift, and a receiver. Take away any one of the three and the > relation is destroyed.”1.346 > > “A degenerate triadic relation is one which is not genuinely triadic, but > may be reduced to a mere aggregate of dyadic relations.” 1.347 > > (ca. 1897–1902, “Logic as Semiotic”) > > “A sign is a tri-relative entity. It brings together a sign, its object, > and its interpretant. This triadic relation is genuine; it cannot be > reduced to dyadic relations without losing its essential character.” CP > 5.484 > > (1906, “Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism”) > > “Thought is a species of genuine triadic relation. It involves a sign, its > object, and its interpretant. The same may be said of communication in > general, and indeed of law. Every genuine triadic relation involves a > sign.” CP 3.456 > > (1903, Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism) > > “Every genuine triadic relation involves a sign, whether it be a sign of > word or deed, or any other sort; for every triadic relation implies > mediation, and mediation is of the nature of a sign.” > and > “A mere dyadic relation, like action and reaction, is not a sign, because > it involves no mediation. But where there is mediation there is a sign, and > where there is a sign, there is mediation.” EP 2:389–390 > > 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.
