Jon S,
Hold the phone … perhaps the scales have suddenly fallen from my eyes, but I
now see the problem with CP 2.235-6 if it’s applied to signs: the order of
complexity as stated there is NOT consistent with the order of determination
object > sign > interpretant.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 17-Apr-17 09:36
To: 'Peirce-L' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic
Jon S.,
OK, what I’ll do here is take CP 2.235-6 and apply it to signs on the
assumption that the Sign is First Correlate and determines the Interpretant
which is Third Correlate, and list ALL the possibilities, and see whether
your “entailment” is among them.
1. Sign is a mere possibility (qualisign). Then the
Interpretant is a mere
possibility.
2. Sign is an actual fact (sinsign). Then the Interpretant is either an
actual fact or a possibility.
3. Sign is a law. Then the Interpretant could be possibility,
fact or law.
4. Interpretant is a mere possibility. Then it could have been
determined by
any of the three kinds of sign.
5. Interpretant is an actual fact. Then it could have been
determined by a
fact or a law.
6. Interpretant is a law. Then it could only have been
determined by a law.
Or, as Peirce put it in terms of correlates: the First Correlate is “a mere
possibility if any one of the three is of that nature, and not a law unless
all three are of that nature.” And the Third Correlate is “a law if any one
of the three is a law, and not a mere possibility unless all three are of
that nature.” That’s what 2.235-6 says.
I still don’t see how you get this passage to “entail that the Third
Correlate determines the Second Correlate, which determines the First
Correlate.” Hence my bafflement.
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [ <mailto:[email protected]>
mailto:[email protected]][1]
Sent: 16-Apr-17 20:17
To: Gary Fuhrman < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>
Cc: Peirce-L < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic
Gary F., List:
Consider these two passages.
CSP: The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of
the simplest nature, being a mere possibility if any one of the three is of
that nature, and not being a law unless all three are of that nature. The
Third Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the most
complex nature, being a law if any one of the three is a law, and not being
a mere possibility unless all three are of that nature ... (CP 2.235-236;
1903)
CSP: It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it
is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a
Necessitant. Hence it follows from the definition of a Sign that since the
Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign
itself, which determines the Destinate Interpretant, which determins the
Effective Interpretant, which determines the Explicit Interpretant, the six
trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they would if
they were independent, only yield 28 classes ... (EP 2:481; 1908)
If we equate "mere possibility" with "Possible" and "law" with
"Necessitant," and define "determines" in accordance with the second
passage, then the first passage entails that the Third Correlate determines
the Second Correlate, which determines the First Correlate. This is the
only way that the same procedure that yields 28 classes from six correlate
trichotomies will yield ten classes from three correlate trichotomies such
that the First Correlate is a law only if all three are laws, and the Third
Correlate is a mere possibility only if all three are mere possibilities.
Please note, I am well aware that these are not the ten Sign classes that
Peirce spells out later in NDTR.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Links:
------
[1] mailto:[email protected]%5D
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
