0101 Here is what I have covered so far in the semiotic ladder.
0102 If I were to continue with Peirce’s schema of one sign-vehicle (immediate), two sign-objects (immediate and dynamical) and three sign-interpretants (immediate, dynamical and final), then I would try to figure a way to add a final interpretant.
Indeed, step three of the ladder adds a final interpretant, and this final interpretant is extrinsic to the human individual. The human being appears in step four, adding an intrinsic final interpretant.
0103 In short, steps three and four are entangled, which may not be too safe when the analogy is a ladder.
Be that as it may, allow me to add a perspective level to the example of the specified sign that arises from a landslide.
0104 According to the category-based nested form, there are two signs in play.
The first sign-relation embodies specified extrinsic formal causality. The immediate object serves as the material for the sign-vehicle. This does not quite match Peirce’s schema (discussed above). But, that does not mean that it does not belong to Peirce’s grand vision. After all, the immediate object captures two features of most sign-vehicles. First, the sign-vehicle is material. Second, the sign-vehicle formally denotes a sign-object in regards to a sign-interpretant.
The second sign-relation embodies a different style of formal causality. Plus, this different style comes in two flavors. The causality associates to Peirce’s final interpretant.
Peirce’s use of the word, “final”, does not correspond to the scholastic definition of a final cause. Or does it? The flavors are extrinsic and intrinsic.
0105 To obtain the name for this different style of formal causality, consult Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) New Beginnings, mentioned in a prior blog.
What matters here is that the dynamical object of a blocked road cannot avoid engaging a final interpretant, consisting of the network of paths that includes the road (extrinsic) and the individual’s options with and without a landslide (intrinsic).
0106 This apparently dualistic final interpretant covers the third and fourth rungs of the semiotic ladder.
Here is a picture.