Prologue

A barometer acts as a Sign of a storm. The storm, therefore, is the Object of the barometer Sign. The storm is preceded by low atmospheric pressure–one aspect of the overall Form of the storm–which affects the barometer (causing the needle to move). In other words, the Object (the storm) determines the Sign (the needle indicating low atmospheric pressure).

This Sign, in turn, leads to an Interpretation (“It looks like a storm is coming”), assuming someone familiar with the barometer (such as a farmer) perceives it. Thus, the Form (low atmospheric pressure) of the Object (the storm) is conveyed through the Sign (the barometer), influencing the Interpretation (the farmer’s concern about the impending storm).

What is a Sign?

You are constantly interpreting different signs. The alarm clock rings – a sign of another morning. A yawn is a sign that you’re still tired. Steam from your coffee cup is a sign it’s hot. Your own rapid movements before you leave the house signify that you’re in a hurry. The sound of the door closing is a sign that you’ve left.

Every moment various signs guide you through the day. Your entire experience is a flow of signs passing through you.

The interpretation of signs is so natural and effortless for us that we have become blind to it. Just as you might forget that the world isn’t actually so dark when wearing sunglasses, you have become blind to the interpretation of signs.

All you need to do is look around, notice something, and soon you will see how that thing triggers thoughts, ideas, memories, and expectations in your mind. That thing is a sign, overflowing with meaning, causing countless different effects within you.

I urge you to look on something. Notice how your mind begins to race. Those ideas and suggestions popping into your mind are signs as well. You’ve just witnessed how your experience can be conceptualized as a continuous flow of signs, known as semiosis. Through this flow, we connect to a continuous sign-fabric that unites us all.

Your recent encounter with that thing changed you. Perhaps you remembered a pleasant memory or had a funny thought that made you smile. That smile, in turn, is a new sign. Maybe you will soon meet someone still with that same smile on your face. When they see your smile, it will put them in a good mood too. See! Semiosis spreads like ripples from a drop falling into a calm lake. We are in the midst of a sign-flow where everything affects everything else.

Consider that the previous example was just a tiny glimpse into the vast world of semiotic activity. At every moment, information flows to us through various conscious and unconscious signs. All the things you perceive, sounds you hear, smells you smell, thoughts you think, these very words you read, are interpreted signs.

These interpretations are communication where signs convey information to you. According to Peirce, a sign is essentially “a medium of communication”. And communication, in its broadest sense, can be defined as:

“The transmission of information, in which no a priori concern is given to what the information is, through what it passes, or how the transmission occurs. It is sufficient to note that some kind of change in state or form has occurred either in our external world or in our internal minds, thus establishing some form of communication event.” Romanini, 2006, 1

Communication thus involves some form of change. For example, meeting someone else brings about changes in both parties. Every moment impacts you, contributing to your personal development. Thus, you are constantly engaging in communication with reality.

If a sign acts as a mediator of communication, and semiosis is sign-action, then semiosis is essentially another term for communication.

Let us take a closer look on the sign.

Sign

Peirce’s concept of the sign is triadic, meaning it involves a relationship between three elements:

  • The Object: The thing that the sign represents.
  • The Sign: The representation that stands for the object.
  • The Interpretant: The effect of the sign.

It’s important to note that the sign is not a single entity that is composed of three separate things. Instead, sign is a single relatum within a triadic relationship. The object and the interpretant are distinct from the sign, but for something to function as a sign, it must be part of this triadic relationship involving a relation to the object and to the interpretant.

The sign is, above all, a logical entity that can be defined as a mediator of information between two minds. Therefore, everything can function as a sign.

Sign is not constrained to any material, time or space. It can last for fleeting moment or span millennia. Doesn’t matter. The only important thing is that it represents something and has the potential to cause something.

The role of the sign is to create a representation in the mind of something other than what the sign itself is. To refer to something, to point at something, to cause a thought of something. That something is called the Object.

Object

What the sign represents is called the object of the sign.

The object of the traffic sign above is a hotel. The sign evokes in your mind the idea (interpretant) of a hotel (object), which is not present “here and now”. The sign thus refers to something external to itself.

However, the object does not need to be a material entity like a table or a tree, although such objects can certainly serve as the object in a sign relationship. The object can also be fictional, such as Harry Potter, Atlantis, or a fate predicted by a fortune-teller. Or perhaps the hotel to which the traffic sign refers to has just burned down.

Nevertheless, the sign would still be interpreted as a sign of the hotel. Therefore, semiosis can, in certain respects, continue even if the object itself ceases to exist, because anything that can be represented can serve as an object, even if it doesn’t exist. The object is, above all, a logical position.

Interpretant

The interpretant is the consequence or effect produced by the sign, which the object determines through the sign.

Peirce doesn’t use the term interpretation, because the interpretant does not need to be conscious or even necessarily produced by an organism. By using the term interpretant, we avoid excessive psychologization of the sign.

In addition to a thought, the interpretant can also be a feeling or an action. The effect produced by the interpretation of the sign functions as a new sign, which can be reinterpreted as a more developed sign of the same object. Through this continuous chain of interpretations, information continually grows as semiosis develops towards the truth.

magine a herd of deer grazing in a forest clearing. Suddenly, one deer hears a branch snap. The snapping branch is a sign of a possible predator (object), causing the deer to run away (interpretant). The rest of the herd sees the first deer run, which serves as a new sign of potential danger (object), prompting the others to flee as well (interpretant).

We see how the interpretation (the first deer running away) acts as a sign to the other deer of the same object (the possible predator), leading to a new interpretation (the rest of the deer starting to move).

Form

Form is what the sign conveys or communicates.

The role of the sign is to transmit the form of the object to the interpretant:

“What are signs for, anyway? They are to communicate ideas, are they not? (…) Of course, then, these”ideas” are not themselves “thoughts” or imaginary signs. They are some potentiality, some form, which may be embodied in external or in internal signs.” EP2: 388, 1906, emphasis added “Form is not a singular thing (…) The Being of a Form consists in the truth of a conditional proposition. Under given circumstances, something would be true.” EP2: 544, 1906

The form conveyed by a sign is essentially a conditional proposition; a potential future “would-be”, meaning that under certain conditions, something would be true. In practice, it refers to the behavior of the object, which the sign communicates to the interpretant.

For example, a storm has a tendency to cause low atmospheric pressure, which the barometer conveys to the farmer. The sign can communicate the form of the object by embodying it within itself. However, the sign does not embody the form itself but rather the representation of the form. For instance, low atmospheric pressure does not physically embody itself in the barometer; instead, it influences the needle, which represents the low atmospheric pressure. Or a photograph of a cat does not embody the actual form of the cat but a representation of that form.

The form of the object should not be understood as a dead, immutable code, but rather as a living force.

“The form present in a semiotic object is an active one, which influences and guides the entire process of semiosis” Romanini, 2009, 7

The Form of the Object is the “speaker” in communication, the Sign is the medium of communication, and the Interpretant (the effect of the sign) is the “receiver” of the communication, acting simultaneously as the purpose of semiosis, toward which the process develops.

The form of the object seeks to embody itself in the sign so that it can express itself in the interpretant. And the sign seeks to mediate this form. Both of them are active:

“A sign … perfectly conforms to the definition of a medium of communication. It is determined by the object, but in no other respect than goes to enable it to act upon the interpreting quasi-mind; and the more perfectly it fulfills its function as a sign, the less effect it has upon that quasimind other than that of determining it as if the object itself had acted upon it.” EP2: 391, 1906

Signs evolve and grow in their attempts to represent the form of their object more accurately. In other words, a sign aims to produce in the interpreter the same effect (interpretant) that the object would produce.

The reading on a barometer that represents a storm causes the same concern in the farmer’s mind as the sight of the storm itself would cause. A traffic sign indicating a hotel evokes the same thought as the actual sight of the hotel would.

The sign thus strives to become more similar in effect to the form of its object. Signs evolve and embody more form and meaning within themselves. We particularly notice the growth of signs in symbols

“Every symbol is a living thing in a very precise sense, which is not merely a figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but its meaning inevitably grows, incorporating new features and discarding old ones” EP2: 264, 1903

Think of internet memes. Memes are symbols that constantly evolve, becoming more complex and accumulating more meaning. They seek to embody the forms of objects they represent more effectively. Additionally, they seem to have a life of their own, as no one controls them. Memes evolve on their own terms, reflecting the strange nature of our lives.

Or consider the word “electricity.” How much more does that symbol mean now than it did in 1845 when Samuel Roos coined the term. That symbol continues to accumulate more and more meaning over time. We can observe the same tendency in nature. For example, different animal species have developed very complex courtship rituals. Various courtship dances and songs are signs that evolve in complexity and significance through evolution, striving to better represent beauty.

“A symbol is an embryonic reality endowed with the power of growth into the very truth, the very entelechy of reality. This appears mystical and mysterious simply because we insist on remaining blind to what is plain, that there can be no reality which has not the life of a symbol.” EP2: 324, 1904

Semiosis and Information

The process of semiosis is characterized by continuous self-organization and self-formation, where information constantly increases. But what does the growth of information mean? What is information, anyway?

When we hear the word information, we often think of bits and data. This is the mathematical concept of information that Claude Shannon developed while deciphering encrypted messages during World War II. Shannon’s information is measured in bits, which represent the minimum number of yes/no questions needed to determine the amount of information contained within a system.

For example, a coin toss is a simple informative system. In order to determine the information contained in the system, we only need to ask one question: heads or tails? In other words, the coin toss system contains one bit of information.

For Peirce, information is not quantitative but qualitative. Peirce’s information is the form of matter. As we’ve already learned, form is a potential conditional – a “would-be”. When form combines with matter, that is, when form is embodied in a sign, information is created.

But into what form should the form of the object materialize into? We know that a sign strives to embody the form of its object, but how should the sign be interpreted so that the form of the object is also embodied in the interpretation?

We have arrived at the core of pragmatism, as this question concerns the best possible interpretation of the sign, or the ultimate logical interpretant, that is the meaning of some sign.

Peirce distinguishes between three different types of interpretations:

  • A sign can evoke an emotional interpretation (1stness). For example, music is interpreted through emotions. Moreover, the interpretation of a sign is always preceded by a feeling of understanding the sign.
  • If the interpretation is more than just a feeling, it necessarily involves effort (2ndness). In this case, it is an energetic interpretation, like a deer fleeing when a branch snaps.
  • Interpretation can also be a thought (3rdness), in which case it is a logical interpretation.

As you read this text I’ve written, you are constantly making various logical interpretations, but note how they always involve action (reading, concrete brain activity) and emotions (hopefully positive ones). We can also note aphoristically that action always involves emotion, but not necessarily reason.

But what is the ultimate logical interpretant?

Ultimate Logical Intepretant

The ultimate logical interpretant cannot be emotion, because emotions themselves do not refer to anything outside of themselves. Emotion is private and singular, whereas meaning is public and general.

The ultimate logical interpretant cannot be action either, because actions are singular events, whereas the form of the object is a potential conditional, a general tendency, that can manifest indefinitely (lowered air pressure can occur countless times).

The ultimate logical interpretant must thus be a logical interpretation. However, there are many kinds of logical interpretations. They can be thoughts, ideas, or symbols, but these are not ultimate logical interpretants either, because they are signs, and signs always necessarily have an interpretant, which would cause the chain of interpretation to continue indefinitely into the future, endlessly deferring the problem of meaning.

To put this simply, let’s pick a symbol like “bravery”. If we now say that its ultimate logical interpretant is another symbol like the definition: “the quality of showing mental and moral strength to face danger”, we end up in a vicious cycle. Namely, what is then the ultimate logical interpretant of the definition? What is the meaning of, say moral strength?

Again we would have to come up with some definition made of symbols (words) and we would face the problem of meaning again and again in a endless loop. We would never reach the ultimate meaning of anything, as it would be endlessly deferred.

Pragmatism solves this by introducing the idea that the ultimate meaning of concepts, like bravery, are the practical conditional consequences that it would cause, that is, a habit. The ultimate meaning of bravery is not understood intellectually, but seen in action. If you want to really explain what bravery is, you have to see it, experience it, not read its definition from a book.

The ultimate logical interpretant of bravery are the habits of bravery, not any concept of bravery. Brave men have a habit of acting bravely. A habit has a conditional and general form, it is a would-be, because it can manifest itself countless times. Therefore, only a habit has a form logically identical to that of the object.

“The real and living logical conclusion is that habit; the verbal formulation merely expresses it. (…) The concept which is a logical interpretant is only imperfectly so. It partakes somewhat of the nature of a verbal definition, and is very inferior to the living definition that grows up in the habit.” CP 5.491

Evolution Towards the Truth

Thus, form materializes as habits. The increase in information can be understood as learning from experience, where the forms of objects are internalized as habits. In this way, a system that develops a habit (a physical system, organism, community, or society) adapts to a more harmonious relationship with its environment, as the system’s habits align with the habits of the surrounding environment and, through this, the with the more general systems.

For example, the habit of trees to shed their leaves in autumn aligns with Earth’s habit of orbiting the Sun, causing the seasons. The trees have thus adopted a habit through evolution that is in harmony with the “cosmic” habits of the species’ environment. The tree species has “learned” from experience.

Systems change their habits in an effort to adapt to their environment. A change in habits is a change of state, that is, communication, that is, information mediated by signs, that is, internalizes and embodied forms.

Thus, the growth of information impacts the behavior and habits of the system, which connect the system to the surrounding reality. We can therefore state that information is a systemic relationship between the external reality of the system and the internal habits of the system.

Semiosis tends to evolve toward truth. For this reason, the growth of information strengthens and makes more truthful the relationship between the system and the surrounding reality. If information flows successfully from the object, through the sign, to the interpretant, the system “calibrates” itself into a more harmonious relationship with its environment.

For example, when a child touches a hot stove despite their mother’s warnings, the physical pain is real information that changes the child’s future behavior. The child internalizes new (albeit unpleasant) information, which alters the child’s habits and simultaneously makes the child’s relationship with reality more truthful.

Similarly, a community may realize that dirt (and eventually bacteria) increases the likelihood of illness, leading to habits of cleaning and hygiene. Real information changed the community’s habits and strengthened the community’s relationship with reality, making it more truthful: “If Shannon’s information is a product of war, Peirce’s information is born from an aesthetic and ethical ideal that puts us in harmony with the Universe” (Romanini, 2006, 3).

The key point is to notice how semiosis/evolution/communication/growth of information/learning from experience lead to the formation of habits. The forms of objects strive to materialize into various habits. We can think of this process as a “cosmic dance,” in which everything that exists tries to adapt to each other’s movements, forming common habits, reflecting and embodying the ultimate form in their ultimate logical interpretant.