Jon, Robert, List,
I have two questions, the first is, why is there so much emphasis put on the distinction between a correlate (object, interpretant) and the relation between the sign and each of both? I think, the object and the interpretant are already relations with the sign: The object (at least the immediate, but I think, both parts) doesn´t exist, if it isn´t denoted by, and determines the sign. The interpretant is already determined by the sign, and without an anticipated interpretant, the sign would not exist. This could be explained this more explicitly, by mentioning the two parts of the object, and the three of the interpretant, but my point works anyway already so, I think.
My second question is: What is a trichotomy? Is it both about specification/classification, and composition? From the word root (to cut something into three pieces) I would say, it only is about composition, e.g. for sign, object, interpretant. But not for classification, like rheme, dicent, argument. Because there it is not about parts of something, but about "either-or" classes. "Either-or" means, these items already are apart, you cannot cut something into three pieces here. Ok, you can do this with your mind, but then you don´t cut the real -or imagined- thing apart, not even prescindingly, but virtually e.g. a sheet of paper, on which classes are written. Then you have a trichotomy of paper, but not of the interpretant (aka(?) its relation with the sign).
Best, Helmut
17. Oktober 2025 um 19:15
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]>
wrote:Robert, List:
As I demonstrated by providing the relevant quotations in my previous post in this thread (CP 2.238&243, EP 2:290-1), although Peirce suggests in 1903 that triadic relations are classified using trichotomies for the nature of each correlate itself, he does not go on to classify signs that way; after all, a sign is not a triadic relation, it is the first correlate of such a relation (CP 2.242, EP 2:290). Instead, although the first trichotomy is indeed according to the nature of the sign itself, the second is according to the nature of the relation between the first and second correlates, the sign and its object; and the third is according to the nature of the relation between the first and third correlates, the sign and its interpretant.
These are both dyadic relations that are involved in the triadic relation, but the latter is not reducible to them, which is why it is a genuine triadic relation. Peirce recognizes already in 1903 that "In every genuine Triadic Relation, the First Correlate may be regarded as determining the Third Correlate in some respect" (CP 2.241, EP 2:290), i.e., the sign determines its interpretant. He later elaborates that the sign "is both determined by the object relatively to the interpretant, and determines the interpretant in reference to the object" (EP 2:410, 1907), i.e., the sign's dyadic relations with its object and interpretant are both relations of determination--the object determines the sign to determine the interpretant. Again, Peirce uses trichotomies for these relations, not the object and interpretant themselves, to classify signs in 1903.
Identifying six correlates instead of three is a refinement, not an entirely new conceptualization. What Peirce calls the object in 1903 is precisely what he later calls the dynamical object, as distinguished from the immediate object. We know this because the trichotomy for the sign's relation with its object in 1903 (icon/index/symbol) is identical to the one for the sign's relation with its dynamical object in his later taxonomies. Likewise, what Peirce calls the interpretant in 1903 is what he later calls the final interpretant, as distinguished from the immediate and dynamical interpretants. We know this because the trichotomy for the sign's relation with its interpretant in 1903 (rheme/dicisign/argument) is identical to the one for the sign's relation with its final interpretant in his later taxonomies (further generalized to seme/pheme/delome).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 2:48 AM robert marty <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon, List,
It's clear that you don't know much about binary relations, let alone triadic or hexadic relations. Once again, your response misses the point. The binary relation you note (S-Od) by introducing Od, which cannot have been present in 1903 since it first appeared in a hexadic definition of the sign in 1906 (definition 33), in a new conceptualization of the sign with six elements and five determinations. You always come back to that. However, here Peirce works only with triadic relations, which he class without any internal determination between their respective correlates. He class them according to the valid triplets of natures to which he assigns all three. Your 21 classes are flawed and have no future. I believe I have already answered all of this in my previous posts. It is best that we leave it at that.
Best regards,
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
