Jon, List, Jon: ". . . at any scale *within* that continuum--zooming in or out, one *always* finds an object determining a sign to determine an interpretant." You continue:
I suggest that *this* is why Peirce asserts, "There is a science of semeiotics whose results no more afford room for differences of opinion than do those of mathematics, and one of its theorems ... is that *if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign*" (R 1476, 1904); why he says that "*the aggregate formed by a sign and all the signs which its occurrence carries with it ... will itself be a sign*" (EP 2:545n25, LF 3/1:184, 1906); and why he declares "*that there can be no isolated sign*" (CP 4.551, 1906) [emphasis added by GR]. You've made it clear in your posts in this thread that in Peirce's mature view the statements (*boldfaced above*) together express a single principle: semiosis is inherently continuous and systemic such that every sign is linked to others in an ongoing relational process; thus, any network of interrelated signs forms a single sign (a 'higher-order' sign?); further, I believe that you've suggested along the way that each sign participates in a continuous 'web' of interpretation where meaning emerges from the interconnection of signs rather than from any discrete sign or signs. So far I'm with you and in agreement. But I wonder about the conclusion of this statement: Jon: It is also why I insist that the first step toward analyzing *any* individual sign is *prescinding* it from the real and continuous process of semiosis, followed by *identifying its antecedent object and its consequent interpretant, both of which are likewise of the nature of a sign.* While I agree with your 'first step', that we need to prescind any individual sign from that portion of the continuous semiosis in which it is located, I don't see how we go about "identifying *its* antecedent object and *its* consequent interpretant*.*" Please explain and give an example or two. Best, Gary R On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 2:07 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > Taking up another question that I posted > <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-10/msg00145.html> in this > thread on 10/31 ... > > > JAS: What is the connection between a true continuum and a triadic > relation? > > > > Peirce touches on this in his final 1898 Cambridge Conferences Lecture, > "The Logic of Continuity"--the same one in which he later presents his > blackboard diagram, although the relevant portion in this case (NEM > 3:107-8, RLT 248-50) was largely omitted from the *Collected Papers*. He > describes a continuum as a "potential collection" in which "the individuals > are determinable as distinct," but not by virtue of having "distinctive > qualities." Instead, it is "by means of relations that the individuals are > distinguishable from one another." As Hilary Putnam observes in his > "Comments on the Lectures" (RLT 95), this is evidently what Peirce means > when he subsequently states, "Now continuity is shown by the logic of > relations to be nothing but a higher type of that which we know as > generality. It is relational generality" (CP 6.190, RLT 258). > > > > But what *kind* of relations distinguish the potential individuals within > a continuum from each other? Peirce immediately rules out identity and then > demonstrates that any "simple dyadic relation" would allow for "two > possible exceptional individuals." This is problematic "because the whole > idea of the system is the potential determination of individuals by means > of entirely general characters." Here is the upshot. > > > CSP: The generality of the case is destroyed by those two points of > discontinuity,--the extremities. Thus, we see that no perfect continuum can > be defined by a dyadic relation. But if we take instead a triadic relation, > and say *A* is *r* to *B* for *C*, say to fix our ideas that proceeding > from *A* in a particular way, say to the right, you reach *B* before *C*, > it is quite evident, that a continuum will result like a self-returning > line with no discontinuity whatever. > > > > A continuum (3ns) is *defined by* a triadic relation that holds among any > three *potential* individuals that it involves (1ns), by means of which > they are "determinable as distinct," i.e., capable of actualization (2ns). > Accordingly, the *semiosic* continuum is defined by the triadic relation > in which a sign "mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it > is both determined by the object *relatively to the interpretant*, and > determines the interpretant *in reference to the object* ... the one > being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign" (EP 2:410, 1907). > Moreover, because "a continuum is that of which every part has itself parts > of the same kind" (CP 6.168, c. 1903-4), this triad involving three dyads > and three monads is present not only *throughout* the continuum that it > defines, but also at any scale *within* that continuum--zooming in or > out, one *always* finds an object determining a sign to determine an > interpretant. > > > > I suggest that *this* is why Peirce asserts, "There is a science of > semeiotics whose results no more afford room for differences of opinion > than do those of mathematics, and one of its theorems ... is that if any > signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one > sign" (R 1476, 1904); why he says that "the aggregate formed by a sign and > all the signs which its occurrence carries with it ... will itself be a > sign" (EP 2:545n25, LF 3/1:184, 1906); and why he declares "that there can > be no isolated sign" (CP 4.551, 1906). It is also why I insist that the > first step toward analyzing *any* individual sign is *prescinding* it > from the real and continuous process of semiosis, followed by identifying > *its* antecedent object and *its* consequent interpretant, both of which > are likewise of the nature of a sign. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
