Robert, List: As always, where there are conflicting claims about Peirce's thought, I encourage readers to draw their own conclusions in light of all the textual evidence presented and otherwise available. Accordingly, I stand by my statement that is contested below, which is from my first post on Monday ( https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-10/msg00095.html) and supported by the following observations and accompanying quotations that I included in my first post yesterday ( https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-10/msg00104.html).
- He says in 1903 that for *any *class where 3ns is predominant, there are subclasses of relatively genuine 3ns, relatively reactional 3ns, and relatively qualitative 3ns. - He also says in 1903 that in *any *triadic relation, the first correlate (e.g., sign) is the simplest, the second (e.g., object) is of middling complexity, and the third (e.g., interpretant) is the most complex. - He introduces the hexad of six correlates already in October 1904, not 1906 or 1908; and it is a further development of his 1903 speculative grammar, not a completely new approach. - He employs the terminology of phaneroscopic analysis to explain the additional correlates in July 1905--the dynamical/immediate objects are genuine/degenerate, and the final/dynamical/immediate interpretants are genuinely/secundally/primarily tertian. - He again refers to the dynamical object and the final interpretant as "genuine" in April 1906, less than a month after writing the letter to Lady Welby that is excerpted below. In any case, that letter never mentions the immediate/dynamical/final interpretants, so it cannot plausibly be considered *the *definitive account of them. It does go on to talk about the intentional/effectual/communicational interpretants, but a few weeks later--in the very same paragraph where he states, "The Normal Interpretant is the Genuine Interpretant"--Peirce says that he has "omitted the *intended *interpretant" because "it may be the Interpretant of *another *sign, but it is in no sense the interpretant of *that *sign" (R 339:[276r <https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$522i>], 1906 Apr 2). Specifically, as "a determination of the mind of the utterer" (SS 196, EP 2:478, 1906 Mar 9), it obviously *cannot *be any of the interpretants of the sign that the utterer is *currently *uttering; instead, it must be a dynamical interpretant of a *previous *sign determined by the same object. I explain this, along with my position that the communicational interpretant corresponds to the immediate (not final) interpretant, in my 2022 *Semiotica *paper, "Peirce's Evolving Interpretants" ( https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=SCHPEI-12). I remain puzzled by the assertion that I am placing the trichotomy for the final interpretant itself (If) wherever it suits me. On the contrary, Peirce's 1903 taxonomy for classifying signs unambiguously puts the trichotomy for the sign's *relation *with its (final) interpretant *after *the one for the sign's *relation *with its (dynamical) object, which comes *after *the one for the sign itself; and he states plainly in 1908 that the trichotomies for *all three* interpretants as correlates also come *after *the one for the sign itself. I continue to refrain from discussing whether their proper logical order is immediate-dynamical-final or final-dynamical-immediate, since I am well aware that this is controversial among Peirce scholars due to his peculiar reference to the destinate/effective/explicit interpretants in that passage (SS 84, EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 2:29 AM robert marty <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > It is false to assert this: > > JAS: Phaneroscopic analysis of the *genuine *triadic relation of > representing/mediating reveals that every one sign has two objects and > three interpretants, for a total of six correlates. > > Phaneroscopic analysis of a genuine triadic relation reveals nothing of > this. This can be seen from the first appearance of the six correlates in > 1906: > > *33 - 1906 - S.S. 196 - Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) dated "1906 March 9".* > > I use the word "Sign" in the widest sense for any medium for the > communication or extension of a Form (or feature). Being medium, it is > determined by something, called its Object, and determines something, > called its Interpretant or Interpretand. But some distinctions have to be > borne in mind in order rightly to understand what is meant by the Object > and by the Interpretant. In order that a Form may be extended or > communicated, it is necessary that it should have been really embodied in a > Subject independently of the communication; and it is necessary that there > should be another subject in which the same form is embodied only in > consequence of the communication. The Form, (and the Form is the Object of > the Sign), as it really determines the former Subject, is quite independent > of the sign; yet we may and indeed must say that the object of a sign can > be nothing but what that sign represents it to be. Therefore, in order to > reconcile these apparently conflicting Truths, it is indispensible to > distinguish the immediate object from the dynamical object. > > The same form of distinction extends to the interpretant. Still, as > applied to the interpretant, it is complicated by the circumstance that the > sign not only determines the interpretant to represent (or to take the form > of) the object, but also determines the interpretant to represent the sign. > Indeed in what we may, from one point of view, regard as the principal kind > of signs, there is one distinct part appropriated to representing the > object, and another to representing how this very sign itself represents > that object. The class of signs I refer to are the dicisigns. In "John is > in love with Helen" the object signified is the pair, John and Helen. But > the "is in love with" signifies the form this sign represents itself to > represent John and Helen's Form to be. That this is so is shown by the > precise equivalence between any verb in the indicative and the same made > the object of "I tell you". "Jesus wept" = "I tell you that Jesus wept". > > As you can see, the reasons given by Peirce do not mention the > phaneroscopy of the triadic sign *at any point. *He describes the six > stages of the journey of a form that would be in the object of the sign > into the mind through six successive determinations. He arrives at a more > complicated sign, a new definition by expansion. > > We can still see this in CP 4.536 et 4.539, then in 1908 (47 bis – 1908 - > Letter to Lady Welby in CP 8.343), CP 8.314 [March 14, 1909], and in CP > 8.183 (undated). > > It seems to me that Jon is attempting to dissolve the triadic sign into > the hexadic sign (a more detailed hypostatic abstraction of the semiotic > phenomenon according to Peirce) in order to ultimately promote an > idiosyncratic pentadic sign with 21 classes in which he engraves his > ideology (if not something else ?) by placing the If wherever it suits him. > > > > I promised myself I would keep my time to myself and stop fact-checking, > but this was too much. > > > Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy > fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty > *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
