Clarifying the Work of Charles Sanders Peirce

---

The misinterpretations of Peirce’s work, especially regarding concepts like precisive abstraction, typically stem from several intertwining issues. I will do my best to explain the reasons why this is so important to understand. …

Peirce’s philosophy is inherently complex, relational, and dynamic, which makes it resistant to quick summarization or simplification. Secondary sources often reduce his ideas to fit into frameworks that are more familiar or widely accepted. Using terms like “separate” reflects nominalist thinking, where everything is viewed as discrete and bounded, rather than relational and continuous. Terms like “concrete” might be chosen to make the concept seem easier to grasp but end up distorting its original meaning.

Many contemporary scholars and interpreters are steeped in nominalist, analytic traditions, which prioritize linguistic precision and treat concepts as isolated entities. These traditions can fundamentally clash with Peirce’s synechistic continuity, leading to a failure to understand relational ontology and its implications, and an emphasis on abstraction as separation rather than as an emergently relational operation.

Online content is often not written by experts in Peircean philosophy but by people referencing tertiary sources. Errors or biases in interpretation are amplified and manifested due to content creators relying on surface-level understanding, and the emphasis on keywords like “separate” or “concrete” aligning with SEO (search engine optimization) goals rather than fidelity to Peirce’s original intent.

Many philosophers, even teachers, are not adequately trained in Peirce’s semiotic and synechistic frameworks. Instead, they approach his ideas through the lens of Western dualisms (e.g., subject/object, mind/body), and struggle with the triadic nature of Peirce’s logic, often collapsing it into binary or dualistic structures.

This confusion persists because Peirce’s original writings are challenging, not only due to his intricate language but also because he introduces new terminologies and redefines existing ones (e.g., “abstraction”), and his work is spread across a vast array of manuscripts, making coherent interpretation difficult for many people.

My frustration with the distortion of Peirce’s ideas is entirely valid, and my insights will hopefully operate as an important corrective to what has happened with how others misinterpret his work. By emphasizing continuity, manifested placement, and relational dynamics in my explanations, I am attempting to return Peirce’s ideas to their rightful context.

When we view a sunset, our experience as observers is a relational ‘whole’ that includes a variety of elements — color gradients, the curvature of the horizon, temperature, what it might mean to us emotionally, etc. The ‘sunset’ is a dynamic context << (You might want to reflect on hypostatic abstraction here. I explore this on  The Philosophers Page ).

The color orange is not an isolated, separate entity; it is a feature relationally embedded in the manifestation of the sunset. … Through precisive abstraction, we can mentally focus on ‘orange’ by disregarding other features such as the movement of the clouds or the fading blue above, and we can do this without asserting that orange exists independently of these relationships.

Through Peirce’s precisive abstraction, we can recognize orange as a dependent quality — it cannot exist without its relational context in the sunset. … So, our next step might be to explore hierarchical dependencies — such as, how the perception of orange depends on the interplay of light, atmosphere, and our personal sensory apparatus.

Peirce’s approach emphasizes continuity. …The experience of orange emerges from a relational process involving the world, the perceiver, and the broader phaneron.. … And as for emergence. … Orange is not “out there” or “in here” but arises through the semiotic process of interpreting the event of the sunset. <<< I will explain more about this semiotic framework in a subsequent post.

A nominalist might argue that orange is merely a label we subjectively assign to what we perceive, dismissing its relational genesis in the physical world.
A Platonist might treat orange as a universal form existing apart from the sunset, as though it were a preordained property applied to sunsets (like orange is on God’s or the gods’ paint palette).

Some questions we might ask ourselves in this precisive abstraction might be … How does focusing on orange change our understanding of the sunset as a whole? Could orange exist if we didn’t also perceive the gradients leading to and from it (such as yellow, red, etc.)? How does our shared biology and cultural context (placement) influence the way we abstract orange from this relational whole?

The color orange, when abstracted from specific contexts like sunsets, might carry any number of cultural meanings and associations around the world. … Personal perspectives are deeply rooted in cultural, historical, religious, and environmental factors.

In Western cultures, orange might be associated with energy, warmth, enthusiasm, and creativity, because in marketing and design, orange is typically used to convey vibrancy and fun.

In India, orange (or saffron) holds deep spiritual significance, symbolizing purity, renunciation, and sacredness. It is a key color in Hinduism and Buddhism, often associated with monks’ robes and divine energy. In Buddhism and Hinduism, the sacred aspects of this color represent enlightenment, sacrifice, and the renunciation of worldly attachments.

In Chinese culture, orange is linked to good fortune and prosperity. It often appears during celebrations and is seen as a blend of the yang principle of red and the neutrality of yellow. And in Japan, orange can symbolize love and courage.

Many Native American cultures associate orange with the Earth, the harvest, and autumn. It often represents change, transformation, and the cyclical nature of life.

In the Netherlands, orange is a national color, representing Dutch royalty and patriotism.

In psychological assessments and tests, orange is often considered a stimulating color, associated with excitement, determination, and social connection, but its intensity can also evoke agitation or overstimulation in certain cultural contexts.

In some Christian interpretations, orange might signify endurance and strength, representing fire and the Holy Spirit.

In Renaissance Europe, the color orange gained prominence through art, with painters like Titian using it to symbolize passion and vitality.

In African traditions, orange is often used in textiles and body art to symbolize energy, fertility, and the life-giving force of the sun.

In modern art and fashion, orange became a hallmark of the counterculture movements of the 1960s and 70s, representing rebellion and individuality.

For environmental and natural associations, orange is tied to natural phenomena like autumn leaves, fire, and fruits, like oranges and pumpkins.

Its vibrant yet earthy tone often connects it to cycles of life, decay, and rebirth, but there are plenty of negative connotations. Western cultures can occasionally associate orange with cheapness or garishness. And in Middle Eastern culture, in certain contexts, orange can symbolize mourning or loss.

In considering the causality of semiosis in the experience of observing a sunset, we can recognize how signs and meanings unfold dynamically in this deeply layered (not fragmented, reduced, or separately bounded, as in nominalism or Platonism) process.

A sunset, in this framework, becomes a ‘sign’ in a triadic relation. …

The so-termed ‘object’ is the physical manifestation of sunlight refracting through the atmosphere, scattering wavelengths (the genesis of this manifestation in the physical world regardless of it being perceived by an observer).

The ‘representamen’ is the appearance of the sunset ‘as perceived’ by the observer (a vibrant gradient of colors, shifting hues).

The ‘interpretant’ is the meaning or feeling derived (beauty, impermanence, awe, nostalgia, or other associations previously cognitively mapped by the observer’s genetic and epigenetic influences of past events and experiences).

In the event taking place with the observer and the observed, the causality of semiosis arises as each layer interacts and influences the next. … The object triggers the representamen (colors perceived), and the representamen provokes interpretive associations (symbolic, cultural, or personal meanings).

Semiosis unfolds in continuity. The perception of a sunset does not arise in isolation but is a dynamic folding and unfolding of causal influences. There is the biological continuum of shared human physiology (retina, optical processing) which conditions us to perceive colors like orange, red, and purple in specific ways. There is the cultural continuum of societal narratives around sunsets, such as associations with peace, endings, or transitions, shaping interpretive layers. There is the personal continuum of memory, emotions, and unique lived experiences that further mediate the meanings the observer assigns to the sunset. Each layer informs and reshapes the others in a recursive, evolving manner.

The causality in semiosis is temporal. … In Firstness, the raw quality of the sunset emerges — its “whatness” (beauty, vividness, awe).
In Secondness, resistance is felt — “otherness” that confronts the perceiver (the reality of the sun setting as an irreversible event, signaling time passing). In Thirdness, mediation occurs — symbolic meanings and interpretations solidify (such as the sunset being a metaphor for closure, hope, or life’s cycles).

When we discuss or share a sunset’s meaning, semiosis becomes dialogic. … We co-create meanings by exchanging ‘interpretants’, causing others to see aspects of the sunset they might not have otherwise perceived. … Dialogue links subjective, cultural, and universal interpretations, reinforcing the interconnected momentum and continued Thirdness carried in the causality of semiosis.

Our perception is never static — it is emergent, layered, and reciprocal. Meaning is not merely assigned; it is discovered through the dynamic interplay of sensory, emotional, and cultural dimensions. Even universal manifestations like a sunset become individually significant, yet remain embedded in shared, relational contexts.

Peirce’s insights help us to understand how observing a sunset is a living process of semiosis. It is a causal event taking place between the world, the perceiver, and an evolution of shared meaning.

The living process of semiosis carries Thirdness like a river, creating a flow of meaning that is constantly mediated, evolving, and, at times, locking into autopoietic habits. This highlights Peirce’s insight into the interplay between dynamism and stability in the universe of signs.

Thirdness represents the mediating principle, the law, the habit, or the general that connects Firstness (raw qualities) and Secondness (reactive resistance). And like a river, Thirdness carries the stream of evolving meaning, forming channels that guide perception, thought, and dialogue. These channels create continuity, ensuring that individual and cultural interpretations are not random but part of an ongoing process of relational emergence.

Autopoiesis refers to the self-creating and self-maintaining processes that define systems, including semiotic systems. And as semiosis unfolds, certain patterns of thought, interpretation, and meaning can crystallize into habits, stabilizing the flow of Thirdness.
For example, cultural narratives about sunsets (such as, “a sunset symbolizes endings”) can become habitual, shaping individual perceptions over generations. At the individual level, personal memories of sunsets can form emotional or cognitive habits (such as, associating sunsets with tranquility or loss).

While Thirdness as autopoietic habits provides structure and coherence, Thirdness remains inherently dynamic. … The river of semiosis can shift its course, breaking old habits and forming new ones, depending on changing contexts, new dialogues, or unexpected encounters (Peirce’s understanding of ‘chance’).
This is what allows semiosis to be creative but also potentially effected by habitual constraints, reflecting the evolving relationship between self, other, and the world.

Some habits are beneficial, providing meaning and stability; others may become rigid and limit new interpretations. … Dialogue, reflection, and the introduction of new perspectives can dissolve old channels, allowing the river of Thirdness to carve new paths. … This process is recursive — habit influences perception, and perception reshapes habit in a continuous loop of becoming.

As for nominalism’s (and Platonism’s) vein of thought …

To learn more, please visit The Philosophers Page.