Gary R., List: I appreciate and agree with your additional comments in both posts today. Summarizing my own understanding ...
- We *prescind *each sign with *its *object and *its *interpretant from the real and continuous process of semiosis, such that these are artifacts of analysis. - According to Peirce, any *genuine *triadic relation *is not* reducible to the three dyadic relations that it involves, while any *degenerate *triadic relation *is *so reducible. - The trichotomy for the sign's dyadic relation with its interpretant in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy is identical to the one for the sign's dyadic relation with its *final *interpretant in his later taxonomies. - The final interpretant is the *ideal *effect of the sign (would-be, genuine 3ns), while a dynamical interpretant is any *actual *effect of the sign (2ns of 3ns), and the immediate interpretant is its range of *possible *effects (may-be, 1ns of 3ns). - The final interpretant is "final" in the sense of a final cause ( *telos*), not the temporally last member of a series; we aim to *conform *all our dynamical interpretants of signs to their final interpretants, which is why logic as semeiotic is a *normative *science. - Any *individual* event of semiosis consists in an individual dynamical object determining an individual sign *token *to determine an individual *dynamical *interpretant, and these are the three correlates of a *degenerate *triadic relation. - Such events are *governed *(not deterministically dictated) by the *genuine *triadic relation whose three correlates are the sign itself (not any one instance thereof), its dynamical object, and its *final * interpretant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:03 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, Jon, List, > > Peirce offers this definition of 'trichotomic' in an unpublished three > page type-script written just after "A Guess at the Riddle" in early 1888 > (EP1: 280-284). Nathan Houser suggests that it was written "probably for > oral presentation." > > TRICHOTOMIC is the art of making three-fold divisions. Such division > depends on the conceptions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd [that is, 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, > something which becomes obvious in the next three sentences GR]. First is > the beginning, that which is fresh, original, spontaneous, free. Second is > that which is determined, terminated, ended, correlative, object, > necessitate, reading. Third is the medium, becoming, developing, bringing > about. EP1: 280 > > > But this is looking at each category separately and abstractly in terms of > its individual 'character' or 'mode of being'. Once the three categories > are involved in semiosis their co-relations take on a* vital character *(as > Peirce elsewhere explains). > > Each category is not only a mode of being but also a way of relating or > being related. To speak of *correlates* is to say that each category > implies or involves a corresponding kind of relational structure. So, in > semeiotics, and as Jon wrote: "they are *in *a genuine triadic relation > with the sign, which *involves *their respective dyadic relations but is > not reducible to them." > > Perhaps it would be helpful to look at semiosis in light of the vector of > determination where 2ns determines 1ns which in turn determines 3ns (in > Peirce logical sense of 'is constrained by',* not* 'determined by > efficient causation'). So, the object determines the sign which determines > the interpretant, that is, the sign's meaning. I think it was Tom Short who > very helpfully said that the object gives the sign its* aboutness*, and > the sign gives the interpretant sign its *meaning*. > > Compare this with Time which follows the same vector: the past determines > the present which in turn determines the future (again 'determines' should > not be interpreted as efficient causation). Now it is possible to prescind > a tripartite moment from the flow of time. But, firstly, prescision is but > a kind of abstraction and, secondly, lived time is not experienced as three > discrete instants (the instant being but a mathematical abstraction > according to Peirce). Nonetheless, we do have a vital sense of the recent > past and an anticipation of the future. > > As with Time, we can prescind some discrete object -> sign -> > interpretent from the semiosic flow for some analytical purpose just as we > can prescind some single moment from the ongoing flow of time. But that > again would only be for the purpose of a discrete analysis. For just as the > present melds into the future, so does the sign meld into its interpretant > sign (and the semiosis *continues* in much the same way as the flow of > time does). > > Best, > > Gary R >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
