Jon, Helmut, List, Jon, your distinction between the *dynamical object of a particular sign* and the *object of a subsequent sign* helps clarify what I think Helmut is getting at. The interpretant does not turn back and determine the dynamical object of the sign that produced it, but it may become a further sign, and so it may also affect what people expect and do such that their actions can change the situation in which further semiosis takes place. Parker’s account of a world that includes each new sign seems helpful here.
Helmut, I take your question about what happens after an interpretant is formed to concern how interpretation can lead to changes in the world. Shared expectations affect what people do: their actions may change a social situation and that changed situation may give rise to further signs and interpretations. Is that the process you have in mind? I also understand your hesitancy regarding 'habit'. In ordinary usage it may suggest, for example, a personal routine not reflected on. For Peirce, however, a habit is a disposition to respond in certain ways under certain circumstances. It can be shared, reflected upon, and potentially changed. Your phrase “shared expectations” tends toward that idea, I think. Finally, I would hesitate to place social structure in 2ns rather than 3ns. Actual encounters, resistances, and changes involve 2ns. Shared expectations, insofar as they guide how people *would* respond on future occasions, involve 3ns. An interesting question is how those expectations are sustained and changed through actual encounters. Best, Gary R. On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 6:17 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, List: > > As I have said before, it seems to me that an interpreter's expectation is > a determination of that individual quasi-mind by *previous *signs; hence, > it indeed pertains to the *object *of any sign that is *currently *determining > that quasi-mind, not the *interpretant *of that particular sign. However, > according to Peirce ... > > - Semiosis always and only proceeds in one direction, from the object > through the sign toward the interpretant. > - Every sign determines its interpretant to stand in the same triadic > relation to its object as that sign itself does. > - By definition, every sign's *dynamical *object is external to that > sign, independent of it, and unaffected by it. > > Therefore, every sign's *dynamical *object is likewise external to its > interpretant, independent of it, and unaffected by it; so, it is *not *the > case that "the interpretant then determines the dynamical object." > However, the dynamical object *of that interpretant* (as another sign) > now includes the very sign of which it is the interpretant, and the > dynamical object of any subsequent interpretant (as yet another sign) > includes that previous interpretant, and so on. Kelly A. Parker summarizes > this nicely in his 1992 book, *The Continuity of Peirce's Thought*. > > KAP: The dynamical object in each successive representation in the process > is necessarily different from that of its predecessor. The dynamical object > of the first representation is the real universe at that time, and the > immediate object is an abstraction consisting of some aspects of this > reality. The next representation, however, *cannot *have exactly the same > dynamical object. The real universe is at that point populated by at least > one additional entity--the first representamen itself. Every successive > representation in the semeiotic process thus has as its dynamical object > not just the universe which the first representamen represented, but that > universe *plus *the first representamen itself. (p. 148) > > > I add my usual disclaimer that whenever we discuss seemingly discrete > objects, signs, and interpretants, we are referring to artifacts of > analysis that we have prescinded from the real and continuous process of > semiosis. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 3:04 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Gary, List, >> >> I think, you are right. I like yout first mentioned term "shared >> expectations" better, than "habits of interpretation", though both terms I >> find correct. But I suspect the term "habit" to have a pseudo-explanatory, >> and too generalizing, quality, or at least to me it seems so. I admit, that >> this feeling may be caused by the common-sense understanding of "habit" to >> be a not reflected piece of personal grounds of behavior. >> >> Some weeks before, I have come to my conclusion, that expectations (now >> I´d say, especially shared ones too) are a part of the dynamical object. So >> then, in a semiosis, not only the interpretant, and with it the following >> signs, is affected, influenced, determined, but via the interpretant the >> dynamical object as well. >> >> I now suspect (maybe though due to not enough knowledge of mine), that >> Perircean semiotics thoroughly analyses the determination path from the >> object to the sign and then to the interpretant, but not enough what >> happens afterwards. I guess, the interpretant then determines the dynamical >> object, or at least its change. The new dynamical object then determines >> the new sign, >> >> So, the interpretant not only is an interpretation, but as well a >> structure-changing agent. The structure of a semiotic system is situated in >> the dynamkical objects. So, structure is secondness, and not, as I had >> thought some time before, thirdness. This I think is in accord with Peirces >> concept of "Altersense", which, I think, includes memory, and Luhmann, for >> whom the structure of a social system is the expectations and the >> expectations of expectations. >> >> 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
