Jon, List,
thank you for clarifying "trichotomy". So "S-O-I" is not one (it is compositional). My other point was: I think, regarding e.g. the interpretant for a correlate is not prescinding it from its relation-nature, because a correlate can be a relation. I think (right? false?) that the interpretant is a relation of a sign and a meaning, and the relation is, that it is the sign´s meaning. The relation between the interpretant and the sign is a triadic relation (sign, sign, meaning), that equals the dyad (sign, meaning), which again is the interpretant. But I dont know. if this is mathematically correct: (A,A,B) = (A,B)? When I have a relation with another man, which is the fact, that I owe him ten dollars, then the relation between me and this fact is again the fact, that I owe him ten dollars.
Best, Helmut
19. Oktober 2025 um 02:50
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]>
wrote:Helmut, List:
I will answer your second question first, then come back to your first question.
HR: What is a trichotomy? Is it both about specification/classification, and composition?
In Peirce's semeiotic, a trichotomy is for classification, not composition. As used for classifying signs, it is a division according to whether a specific correlate or relation falls under the category of 1ns/2ns/3ns (1903) or belongs in the corresponding 1st/2nd/3rd universe whose constituents are possibles/existents/necessitants (1908).
HR: 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?
Because when classifying signs, there are different trichotomies for the correlates and their relations. A sign is a qualisign/sinsign/legisign (later tone/token/type) according to the mode of apprehension of the sign itself (S). It is an abstractive/concretive/collective according to the mode of being of the dynamical object itself (Od), but an icon/index/symbol according to its dyadic relation with its dynamical object (Od-S). It is a gratific/actuous/temperative according to the purpose of the final interpretant itself (If), but a rheme/dicisign/argument (later seme/pheme/delome) according to its dyadic relation with its final interpretant (S-If). When arranging the trichotomies in the proper logical order, Peirce places the Od-S trichotomy after the S trichotomy (1903), but the Od trichotomy before the S trichotomy (1908). He also places the S-If trichotomy after the Od-S trichotomy (1903), and the If trichotomy after the S trichotomy (1908).
HR: 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.
The object and interpretant are correlates, not relations; they are in a genuine triadic relation with the sign, which involves their respective dyadic relations but is not reducible to them. As I have said many times before, I understand semiosis to be a continuous process; so when we pick out any individual sign, we are prescinding it from that flow, and we must also then identify its object and its interpretant. In that sense, you are correct that something does not serve as a dynamical object apart from the signs that it determines. Moreover, a sign might not have any actual (dynamical) interpretants, but it always has possible (immediate) and ideal (final) interpretants.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 2:47 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
