Jack, list I think you have outlined an excellent, and in my view, absolutely correct, interpretation of Peirce’s thoughts on the semiosic process and the ever-evolving, constantly interactional, non-closed Sign.
My own image of this process is that the semiosic triad, theSign, can be compared with a function where f(x)=y….. And I extend this semiosic interaction not simply within human consciousness, but all of life [ physicochemical, biological, etc]. Thanks for a clear, and I believe, absolutely correct outline of the semiosic process. Edwina > On Jul 27, 2025, at 9:57 AM, Jack Cody <[email protected]> wrote: > > Speaking of the past—and here I may depart from orthodoxy among Peirce > scholars—I do not consider Peirce’s system to be a literal description of the > world as it is, but rather a model for understanding consciousness. I realize > this may be rejected outright, but I cannot help but interpret it in this way. > > When it comes to time—past, present, future—I read Peirce’s categories not as > fixed ontological boundaries, but as phenomenological modalities of temporal > consciousness. That is, I see time in Peirce much like I see it in quantum > theory: not as a clean succession of fixed states, but as an ongoing process > of semiotic determination. Peirce’s account of the categories—Firstness > (quality of feeling), Secondness (reaction or brute fact), and Thirdness (law > or mediation)—already admits a model of continuity that resists closure: > > “Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, > positively and without reference to anything else. It is the realm of > possibility, quality, feeling.” > — CP 1.337 (1885 - by AI-Source). > > In Peirce’s semiosis, the sign is not static: it unfolds through a process of > interpretation, where the Interpretant alters and extends the meaning of a > given sign. In this way, the sign is not an object, but a relational function > across time. Similarly, in quantum terms, the act of measurement—or > interpretation—collapses a possibility space into a particular state, but > never exhausts it. This is why, for example, a sign that emerges twenty years > later may retroactively restructure the significance of a prior event. The > past is made newly legible through present interpretation. > > This is consistent with Peirce’s claim that semiosis is infinite and that > interpretants are themselves signs, capable of being interpreted again: > > “The sign depends upon its interpretant for its interpretation, and this > interpretant again is a sign, which has an interpretant of its own; so that > the process of semiosis is unlimited.” > — CP 2.303 (1903 - by AI-Source) > > As such, what we call "the past" is not determined once and for all, because > it remains open to revision by future interpretants. If the past were fully > determinate, then the most basic acts of reinterpretation, revision, or > understanding would be impossible. > > This same structure is evident in the quantum method I use. In my deductive > framework, I describe recursive systems (S₁, S₂, …) as semiotic phases: each > invocation of S₁ alters it, such that S₁ becomes S₁′, and then S₁″, and so > on. It is never the same state again. This is not merely metaphorical—each > call alters the relational state space, just as each interpretive act in > semiosis transforms the “meaning” of the sign. > > Only when S₁/S₁′ (S₁″… S₁ⁿ) is no longer invoked at all can we say that the > past configuration has truly ceased to be—no longer semeiotically active. In > network or systems theory, that point can be modeled through thresholds of > signal collapse or feedback saturation. But in consciousness or human > reality, it is far less clear: the "end" of a sign’s activity is not > determined ontologically, but functionally—whether or not it continues to be > invoked. > > This is in line with Peirce’s theory that semiosis is never complete. There > is no final interpretant “in this life”—and perhaps not even “in the next”: > > “There is no final, or absolute, interpretant. The process of > interpretation never ceases. The semiosis is infinite.” > — CP 2.92 (1903 - by AI-Source) > > A sign, like a quantum state, may lie dormant, but not concluded. > > In that light, semiosis is akin to the quantum structure I devised (states > and call-backs) in that each is recursive, reinterpreting, historically > contingent, and indeterminate until it isn’t. What we take to be “the past” > is, surely, that which may be called upon within the present at any given > moment (or otherwise we cannot even cite said "past"). > > I must add, here, that owing to my relative "novice" status within this list > I have had to program an AI to grab Peirce quotations where I think they may > or may not fit but the message: I think it important to clarfy such things > these days. As many of you may or may not know, my own work is moving in > divergent areas so I am trying much more, these days, to find some common > ground within the Peircean corpus. It's something that must be addresssed, by > me, personally, at any rate, for me to advance my other work and thus this > community is very helpful (in its agreements and disagreements). > > > (I add, think Marcel Proust and the cake — for those literary inclined among > us). > > Best, > > Jack > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf > of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2025 10:28 PM > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Time and Semiosis (was Semiosic Ontology) > > Gary F., List: > > Let me begin with two housekeeping items. First, I apologize to the entire > List community and especially its moderator, Gary R., for sending three posts > both yesterday and Wednesday, thereby violating his requested limit of two > per day despite complying with the restriction of one per day per thread. > Second, I have changed the subject line of this post to reflect what we are > now discussing, which is not ontology. > > GF: The past is not a place where things go when they die (i.e. become > completely determinate). Nothing exists “in the past.” > > I agree with you that the past is not a place, but I agree with Peirce that > everything in the past is completely determinate and therefore exists. You > say that this strikes you as absurd, but what other mode of being could the > past have? "The Past consists of the sum of faits accomplis, and this > Accomplishment is the Existential Mode of Time. For the Past really acts upon > us, and that it does, not at all in the way in which a Law or Principle > influences us, but precisely as an Existent object acts. ... [T]he mode of > the Past is that of Actuality" (CP 5.459, EP 2:357, 1905). As you put it > yourself, "nothing unhappens." > > Accordingly, in "Temporal Synechism," I outline a version of the "growing > block" theory of time, in which the past and present exist but not the > future--the indeterminate possibilities (1ns) and conditional necessities > (3ns) of the future are constantly becoming the determinate actualities (2ns) > of the past. "Existence, then, is a special mode of reality, which, whatever > other characteristics it possesses, has that of being absolutely determinate" > (CP 6.349, 1902). Nevertheless, as I acknowledged before, in the ultimate > sense, the "one individual, or completely determinate, state of things" could > only be fully realized at "a point in the infinitely distant future when > there will be no indeterminacy or chance but a complete reign of law" (CP > 1.409, EP 1:277, 1887-8). However, time will never actually reach that limit, > when "the all of reality" would be entirely in the past. > > GF: The crucial point I’d like to make is this: time and semiosis are both > continuous, but while time is one-dimensional and one-directional, i.e. > “linear” (to use a spatial metaphor), semiosis is predominately nonlinear. > > The accuracy of this characterization depends on exactly what you mean by > "nonlinear." Just like time, semiosis as analyzed for any prescinded > individual sign is unidimensional and unidirectional, always proceeding from > the object through the sign toward the interpretant. However, it is not only > straight lines that are "linear" in this sense, but also curved lines > including ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas that are mathematically defined > by "nonlinear equations." In fact, according to Peirce's hyperbolic > cosmology, the entire universe is proceeding unidimensionally and > unidirectionally from an initial state in the infinite past toward a final > state in the infinite future, where these two states aredifferent asymptotic > limits that are never actually reached. The initial state is "chaos, tohu > bohu, the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity"; > while the final state is "death, the nothingness of which consists in the > complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity" (CP 8.317, 1891). > > On the other hand, what I call an event of semiosis is "nonlinear" in the > sense that an individual dynamical interpretant as determined by an > individual sign token in an individual interpreter is not strictly a function > of the sign itself and its dynamical object; it also depends on the habitsof > interpretation that the interpreter possesses at that moment, by virtue of > all the signs that have previously determined that interpreter. In other > words, it is a dynamical interpretant of not only the external sign being > analyzed, but also the internal sign that is the interpreting quasi-mind > itself. That is why it is not only possible but quite common for the same > sign to produce different dynamical interpretants in different interpreters, > including misinterpretations where a dynamical interpretant is inconsistent > with the sign's immediate interpretant and/or final interpretant. The aim of > inquiry is eliminating (or at least minimizing) these deviations, which is > what makes logic as semeiotic a normative science. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 8:53 AM <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Jon, list, > > There is one statement near the beginning of your post that strikes me as > absurd, and nothing in the remainder of your explanation changes that > impression. > > JAS: at the present, that [completely determinate] state of things [namely > the all of reality] "is comprised of everything that is in the past" (p. 253). > > The past is not a place where things go when they die (i.e. become completely > determinate). Nothing exists “in the past.” The “state of things” (as Peirce > says) is “an abstract constituent part of reality.” In reality though, as in > the “perfect sign,” nothing is static; “the all of reality” then is as > imaginary as a point on a continuous line. Everything that happens, including > every instance of determination, happens now, and nothing unhappens. > > I’ve offered an alternative Peircean account of determination and causality > which addresses the question raised by Gary R > here:https://gnusystems.ca/TS/css.htm#causdetrmn, for those who might be > interested. > > The crucial point I’d like to make is this: time and semiosis are both > continuous, but while time is one-dimensional and one-directional, i.e. > “linear” (to use a spatial metaphor), semiosis is predominately nonlinear. > Semiosis requires time but also requires energy flows, and energy flows in > systemic processes are typically nonlinear. In the human brain, for instance, > the majority of functional areas that project neuronal signals to other areas > also receive feedback from those areas, and do so continuously during the > current process. Where the organization is hierarchical, the top-down and > bottom-up flows mutually determine what happens. Peirce does acknowledge > mutual determination in the context of Existential Graphs, but he could not > have known how it was physiologically embodied in semiosis or cognition, > because system science was hardly even embryonic in his time. > > Jon, my reading of your post may be uncharitable, but I couldn’t help it! > > Love, gary f. > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with > UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the > body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
