Jeff, I'm sure I must be missing something here, so I'd better take it one question at a time ...
When you say (iii) that "I determines (O-S)", does that mean that the Interpretant determines the Object-Sign relation? That would seem to mean that the Interpretant determines whether the sign is icon, index or symbol. I don't see how that could work, but I don't see how else to read it. Concerning the two sets of three trichotomies each outlined in the middle of EP2:290, those are supposed to apply to triadic relations generally, but how they would apply to Signs (i.e. to one type of correlate of one type of triadic relation) is not clear, because at this point Peirce has not yet said anything about the order of determination, nor has he yet defined a Representamen or a Sign (he does that a couple of paragraphs later, commenting that "Signs are the only representamens that have been much studied.") What we have in the rest of NDTR is ten types OF SIGNS defined according to three trichotomies OF SIGNS. I don't see how either of the two sets of ten classes OF TRIADIC RELATIONS mentioned on p.290 can be expected to map onto the tenfold classification of SIGNS. But I'll keep looking . Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 16-Sep-16 17:33 Hi Gary F., Terry, List, Here are three diagrams I am using to explore the relations of determination between signs, objects and interpretants in the 10-fold classification (circa 1903 in the "Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, So far as They are Determined"). The small roman numerals in the first colored diagram are an attempt to follow the order of the relations of determination, and to work out some features of the key relations (e.g., of reference and representation) that are determined according to these ordered patterns (or, more mathematical terms, paths). The main idea I am trying to develop in the two colored diagrams is that there are really two different sorts of triadic relations that result from the relations of determination between objects, signs and interpretants. He makes this clear in the middle of the page 290 in the EP, vol. 2. As far as I can tell, little has been said about this this double feature in Peirce's account. I'm highlighting this double feature with the branching arrow giving rise to two sorts of triadic relations on the bottom half of the page. Peirce says: "Triadic relations are in three ways divisible by trichotomy, according as the First, Second, or Third Correlate, respectively, is a mere possibility, and actual existent, or a law. ... There will be besides a second similar division of triadic relations into ten classes, according as the dyadic relations which they constitute between either the First and Second Correlates, or the First and Third, or the Second and Third are of the nature of possibilities, facts, or laws; and these ten classes will be subdivided in different ways." If you would, let me know if these diagrams help at all to clarify what he might be saying here in NDTR--and/or where the diagrams might be leading me astray. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
