Thanks for your reply which seems to illuminate clearly the difference between us. The "object of inquiry" in your reply is more like the "objective of inquiry," what would an interpretant  to me in the triadic sign relationship as defined in Selection 2 rather than an object.

     … a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect

     upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former.

I can see where it might be argued that signs are "determined" by the objectives or purposes in using them, but then how do we square that with the idea that the sign is "mediating" between such interpretants and "something else," the object? In fact, the object as the third element in a triadic view of the sign relationship would tend to disappear with this understanding into  a dyadic negotiation between the signs we use and our interpretants  in using them. The relationship between the sign and the interpretant does influence our being concerned with "dark clouds" and "cool air" rather than other kinds of clouds and air, but I think the clouds and the air have to stand on their own as objects in a triadic relationship where the sign mediates between them and and the interpretant, at least if the inquiry is to remain triadic in nature, experimental rather than a priori.

Anyway, I don't want to get hung up on the discussion, and I'm sure you don't either. I'm not even sure Peirce himself doesn't confuse these two perspectives, at least when it comes to distinguishing symbols from signs. I'm really enjoying this project of your's and anxious to move on to further selections and considering them in detail like this. But I do want to stick a pin in this distinction between "object" and "objective" for future reference.

Thanks,

Tom