We are apparently looking at different numbers. I am looking at the numbers stamped on the photocopies made by the team from Texas Tech in the mid-70's (Fisch, Ketner, et al) on the basis of which the Peirce Edition Project originally established itself. They appear at the bottom of the photocopy. This is called the "ISP number" and is to be distinguished from the numbers of the original pages of the MS notebook. I would say that you are apparently going by the latter except that that particular page seems to contain no other number. So I don't know what number you are talking about.
The only thing I can figure, Auke, is that there was, I believe, an error of judgment made at a certain time in the history of the PEP when it was decided to abandon the use of the ISP numbers because of a lot of reordering of the MSS that had occurred by that time and perhaps also because further MSS were subsequently added to the corpus (i.e. after the acquisition of the copies with the ISP numbers). This was a mistake which, I thought, was subsequently realized -- you have to stick with your original system of identifying pages regardless of its rationality or irrationality once the practice has been adopted or else you get precisely the confusion we are now dealing with -- but perhaps someone from the PEP will correct any misunderstanding I have about this. But however that may be, the ISP number is the only number I find on that particular page. I do find, however, an indication that the original page number may have been 210v (v = verso), i.e. I find that number on the photocopy at the top left, though it does not fall on the original page but was numbered by someone on a photocopy. I had been ignoring that one because the "2" is so poorly inscribed that it looks like a "0", which would make no sense as the original page number. But try that one. Joe Ransdell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Auke van Breemen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:39 AM Subject: [peirce-l] RE: immediate/mediate, direct/indirect Joe, I had a hard copy made of the 339 manuscript from 1901 sept until the end of it and I do not reach that: number 361 is the last and one unreadable page after that. This happens to coincide with the listing of pages by Fernando Zalamea. Auke > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: donderdag 16 februari 2006 1:41 > To: Peirce Discussion Forum > Subject: [peirce-l] RE: immediate/mediate, direct/indirect > > > Auke; > > I'm sure of that, yes: that's what the stamp says. > > Joe > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Auke van Breemen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:50 PM > Subject: [peirce-l] RE: immediate/mediate, direct/indirect > > > Joe, > > Are you sure about the source page number? > -- MS 339.493; c. 1904-05 Logic Notebook > > Auke > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: woensdag 15 februari 2006 21:59 > > To: Peirce Discussion Forum > > Subject: [peirce-l] immediate/mediate, direct/indirect > > > > > > This bears on nothing currently under discussion, but I > > happened upon a note > > copying a passage from the Logic Notebook in which Peirce > > explicitly defines > > immediate and direct and thought I should record it here, given how > > frequently the question comes up.. Of course it may or may > > not record his > > actual usage, but only an intended usage at that time. But > it can be > > compared with other passages in which the terms are defined. > > Anyway, it > > goes as follows: > > > > > > A primal is that which is something that is in itself > > regardless of anything > > else. > > > > A Potential is anything which is in some respect determined > > but whose being > > is not definite > > > > A Feeling is a state of determination of consciousness which > > apparently > > might in its own nature (neglecting our experience of it > > etc.) continue for > > some time unchanged and that has no reference of anything > > else I call a > > state of consciousness immediate which does not refer to > anything not > > present in that very state > > > > I use the terms immediate and direct, not according to their > > etymologies but > > so that to say that A is immediate to B means that it is > > present in B. > > Direct, as I use it means without the aid of any subsidiary > > [unreadable > > word] or operation. > > > > -- MS 339.493; c. 1904-05 Logic Notebook > > > > Joe Ransdell > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release > > Date: 2/14/2006 > > > > > > --- > > Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --- > Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release > Date: 2/14/2006 > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release > Date: 2/14/2006 > > > --- > Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release Date: 2/14/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release Date: 2/14/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
