List: Only one question remains to be answered from my post <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-10/msg00145.html> on 10/31.
JAS: How does this [3ns *governs* 1ns and 2ns] apply to the *genuine *triadic relation of mediating, i.e., how exactly does that relation *govern *the degenerate triadic relation, the involved dyadic relations, and the involved monadic characters? My post <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-11/msg00044.html> on Sunday explained that every continuum is defined by a triadic relation, and so the semiosic continuum is defined by the sign-object-interpretant triad. As I see it, phaneroscopic analysis of this relation is how Peirce establishes that every sign has exactly two objects and exactly three interpretants (see CP 5.72, EP 2:162, 1903; R 339:247r <https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$467i>, 1905 Jul 7)--the two objects are genuine (dynamical = Od) and degenerate (immediate = Oi), while the three interpretants are genuinely tertian or relatively genuine (final = If), secundally tertian or relatively reactional (dynamical = Id), and primarily tertian or relatively qualitative (immediate = Ii). I consider this to be a legitimate application of Robert Marty's podium <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352641475_The_Podium_of_Universal_Categories_and_their_degenerate_cases> diagram, but I acknowledge that he disagrees. Each correlate can be in any of the three universes (possible/existent/necessitant) that correspond to Peirce's three categories (1ns/2ns/3ns). 28 classes of signs are obtained once these six trichotomies are arranged in the proper order of determination, which in this context is logical constraint--"a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible ... a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant" (SS 84, EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23). In my view, a genuine correlate *always* determines its degenerate counterpart(s) in that sense, so the three interpretants are destinate = If, effective = Id, and explicit = Ii. Again, I acknowledge that Robert disagrees; he and others advocate instead matching the *temporal* sequence of the three interpretants, so they are destinate = Ii, effective = Id, and explicit = If. Either way, I maintain that the three correlates of the *genuine* triadic relation are the sign *itself*, its *genuine* object (Od), and its *genuine* interpretant (If), which is the effect that an instance of that sign *ideally would* have. I further maintain that each sign *token* is in a *degenerate* triadic relation with its Od--either the same *general *object of the sign of which it is an instance, or an *individual* object that is an instantiation of that general object--and its *reactional* interpretant (Id), which is the effect that the token *actually does* have. The genuine triad is irreducible because it operates by *final* causation, "that kind of causation whereby the whole calls out its parts," while the degenerate triad is reducible to the dyads that it involves because it operates by *efficient* causation, "that kind of causation whereby the parts compose the whole" (CP 1.220, 1902). Both kinds of causation are necessary for any sign to perform its function. "Final causation without efficient causation is helpless … Efficient causation without final causation, however, is worse than helpless, by far; it is mere chaos" (ibid.). The degenerate triad is not *merely* a sequence of two dyads--it is *governed* by the genuine triad, such that the sign token still *mediates* between its Od and Id (EP 2:410, 1907), with the result that the dyadic Od-Id relation is the *same* as the dyadic Od-S relation (CP 2.274, EP 2:272-3, 1903; CP 2.242, EP 2:290, 1903) and thus has no separate trichotomy. The upshot is that semiosis is not an aimless succession of *random* events, nor a deterministic series of strictly *efficient* causes and effects. Instead ... CSP: A perfect continuum belongs to the genus, of a whole all whose parts without any exception whatsoever conform to one general law to which same law conform likewise all the parts of each single part. *Continuity* is thus a special kind of *generality*, or conformity to one Idea. More specifically, it is a *homogeneity*, or generality among all of a certain kind of parts of one whole. Still more specifically, the characters which are the same in all the parts are a certain kind of relationship of each part to all the coördinate parts; that is, it is a *regularity*. (CP 7.535n6, 1908 May 24). I suggest that the one general law or Idea to which all the parts of the semiosic continuum conform is the *genuine* triadic relation of mediating, and the final cause that is operative throughout is the *overall *final interpretant. What is that? According to Peirce, "The purpose of every sign is to express 'fact,' and by being joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining an interpretant which would be the *perfect* Truth, the absolute Truth ... The 'Truth,' the fact that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign" (NEM 4:239-40, EP 2:305, 1901). 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.
