Bernard, Ben and others": I think the quote from Peirce I gave earlier today justifies my reservations about the acceptance of the ten trichotomy scheme that Ben was working with, and my claim that there is no version of it which can simply be put forth as Peirce's considered and self-accepted view, I have no disagreement with your view of the importance of figuring out what the best or proper version of that should be, though. I am just warning people away from taking that version which occurs in the CP as the "definitive" one or as having some special status among the several versions he came up with, none of which can, in my opinion, be so regarded. So I don't see any real disagreement here unless you want to insist on the special value of that particular version.
As regards your earlier post, though, which pertained rather to the question of why I did a diagram for that particular way of ordering the three trichotomies -- as distinct from the ten trichotomies -- when there were other options available, I am glad that you raised a question about that because I am not at all sure that I chose the best way of representing that, as regards the particular ordering relation (1,2,3), nor can I say immediately why I did so. It will take me at least another day, though, to think this through again by rereading my article closely again and also by going back to that material from the Syllabus on Logic which it was based upon and rethinking that. The more I look over the various ordering possibilities the more sense I get that there is something wrong but without being able yet to see precisely what. So let me simply stall you on that until I can answer intelligently and, if necessary, make a revision in my account. Tomorrow then, hopefully. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Morand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign Joe and list, I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in progress for Peirce. I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering to below if you can make it available to the list in one way or the other. However, I think that your concluding sentence is excessively narrow when you write that 1) the theory did not reach any stable state and 2) it can't be reasonably represented as being Peirce's view. I would tend to comprehend such statements within a pessimistic view aiming at undervaluate what was at stake for an understanding of Peirce's semiotic. In fact your diagnosis could remain correct while what Peirce tried to clarify at the beginning of the century and during quite a decade could be of the utmost interest for semiotics. This is more or less my own view. In particular I think that if we manage to produce someday a sufficient account of signs theory in order that it be of practical usage in special sciences, such a sign theory will be informed by the 10 trichotomies system. I know that this statement will have to be justified but just an example: the study of concrete signs needs some concepts as the distinctions between immediate and dynamic objects, and betweeen the three interpretants too. From the theoretical point of view I am also convinced that the transition from the 3 trichotomies to 10 and the relation between the two kinds of systems deserves to be studied on the methodological level (pragmatism). Bernard Joseph Ransdell wrote: > Ben asks: > > "My basic question here is whether these structural relations are > correct or whether the ordering of the trichotomies "I, II, III, IV, > V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X" is correct." > > REPLY: > The MS material in the logic notebook (MS 339) shows quite clearly > that Peirce did not regard himself as having arrived at anything he > could regard as satisfactory, as regards the ten trichotomies, as late > as Nov. 1 of 1909, and the two versions which he thought were -- at > best -- the least objectionable were ones he formulated on Oct 13th of > 1905 and March 31st of 1906. The version you are working with is from > an unsent draft of a letter to Welby of 1908, a year earlier than the > assessment just mentioned, and it differs in significant ways from the > versions he thought best though still unsatisfactory. The fact that > it appears in the Collected Papers gives it no special status since it > is really just discarded draft material. Take all talk about the ten > trichotomies with a VERY LARGE grain of salt, Ben, until we get > some effective and shared access to the relevant MS material. Of > course it is perfectly okay for people to do their own constructions > of the expanded set of trichotomies as they should have been > formulated, provided they are clear on the fact that this is their own > theory; but if the question is as to what Peirce's theory was it can > only be said that it was work in progress which never arrived at a > reasonably stable developed state and which cannot reasonably be > represented as being his view. > > Joe Ransdell > > --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date: 6/6/2006 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date: 6/6/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
