Helmut, List: I am afraid that your use of the terminology here is still incorrect, at least from a Peircean standpoint.
- A dyad is a *relation *with two correlates, and a triad is a *relation *with three correlates. - A dichotomy is a twofold *division* of something, and a trichotomy is a threefold *division* of something. - Immediate/dynamical is a division of the object, not a relation between objects; so, it is a dichotomy, not a dyad.* - Likewise, immediate/dynamical/final is a division of the interpretant, not a relation among interpretants; so, it is a trichotomy, not a triad.* - There are no *irreducible *relations with more than three correlates (e.g., hexad); in accordance with Peirce's reduction thesis, these are *always *reducible to a combination of dyads and/or triads. - *Some *triads are irreducible, but others are reducible to the dyads that they involve; this is precisely the distinction between a *genuine *triadic relation and a *degenerate *triadic relation. - On the other hand, a dyadic relation is *genuine *where both correlates are existents, and *degenerate *where at least one correlate is a quality (CP 1.516, c. 1896; CP 1.528, 1903). - As divisions, not relations, a trichotomy is *not *reducible to "subset-relations," and a dichotomy is *not *reducible to "a set and an element." - It is also *not *the case that the dynamical object *involves *the immediate object, nor that the final interpretant *involves* the dynamical interpretant, which *involves *the immediate interpretant.** - It is (at least theoretically) possible for a sign not to have a *dynamical *interpretant, but *every *sign has dynamical and immediate objects, and *every *sign has final and immediate interpretants. * In one recently published manuscript, Peirce states that "the Object is Dyadic, and the Interpretant is Triadic. We therefore look to see whether there be not two Objects and three Interpretants" (SWS 200, 1905). However, in that context, he is clearly *not *saying that the object *itself *is a dyad, nor that the interpretant *itself *is a triad. Instead, he goes on to discuss the dyadic (dynamical) and monadic (immediate) objects, and then the triadic (final), dyadic (dynamical), and monadic (immediate) interpretants. Hence, the adjectives reflect the nature of the *relation *that Peirce viewed each correlate as having *with the sign* at that particular stage in the evolution of his speculative grammar. ** Again, it is essential to distinguish the dichotomy of objects and trichotomy of interpretants from the various trichotomies for classifying signs. *Both *objects and *all three* interpretants have such trichotomies in Peirce's late taxonomies, and the relation *between *any two of them is not involution but *determination* as logical constraint--when the six trichotomies are arranged in the proper order, each correlate "determines (i.e. renders definitely to be such as it will be)" the next correlate "in a particular manner" (CP 8.361, EP 2:487, 1908 Dec 25). Specifically, "a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible," while "a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant"; and "the Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate Interpretant, which determines the Effective Interpretant, which determines the Explicit Interpretant" (SS 84, EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23). The only controversy here is whether destinate=final and explicit=immediate or vice-versa. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Nov 1, 2025 at 1:48 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Supplement: Jon, List, > what I wrote below, would (in case of ...tomy) count only for the genuine > (final interpretant) element of the trichotomy. It would also be so, that > signs without a dynamical object would be possible, or without a final or a > dynamical interpretant. > 31. Oktober 2025 um 19:39 > "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > Jon, List, > > My (temporal, so-far) assumption, that the object is a dyad, not a > dichotomy, and that the interpretant is a triad, not a trichotomy, is based > on the following thoughts: > > - The hexad is the S,O,I- triad elaborated, or more deeply analysed. > So it should be irreducible too. So it should contain more than one triad, > also relations between all six elements, interwoven in such a way, that it > is irreducible. Which exact manner I don´t know, not being a mathematician. > But it should be irreducible relations, not dicho- and trichotomies, which > are reducible: A trichotomy is reducible to two subset-relations inside > each other, and a dichotomy to a set and an element. > - If the object were a dichotomy, the dynamical object should involve > the immediate object. This is only the case in a true sign. But the > immediate object might be false, it might contain a false supposition or a > hallucination about the dynamical object. Then it would not be involved in > it. But the DO then too would determine the IO, as also some true traits of > its must also be represented in the IO, for the sign to denote it. That > means, there is a relation between DO and IO (a dyad with the relation(s) > denotation-determination), but not necessarily an involution. Similar > thoughts can be thought about the interpretant. > > Before, I had taken involvement as firstness of determination. But this is > common-speech-involvement, not involution. Involution is total involvement, > and involvement (common speech) mostly is partial: A member of parliament > is involved in a decision not with her/his whole body and soul, but only by > professional contribution, and temporarily only when speaking or voting. > > 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.
