|
Vinicius, Robert, and list:
I take it that you have received in the previous
message the image of the original MS version of the boxed triangle, in MS 799.02
(i.e. the second page in the MS 799 folder). Notice the
following:
1. There are no Roman numerals, so that is
clearly an editorial artifact (Hartshorne and Weiss).
2. The numerals "1" through "10" appear
instead, but seem clearly to have been added after the image was drawn and
the names of the sign classes were entered, raising the question of whether they
are due to Peirce or to some later editors. (More on this
below)
3. The numerals associated with the boxes
differ in one respect from the Roman numerals that were editorially added in the
CP version, namely, in respect to the boxes at the middle and the bottom of the
pyramid
4. The names assigned to the boxes also
differ in that same respect. Thus both the boxes and the numerals
associated with them have been, in effect, interchanged in the transition from
the original drawing to the version in the CP.
5. Someone has indicated with the line with
an arrowhead at both ends that an interchange should be made, i.e. it seems very
likely that this is the meaning of that line.
5. This interchange makes the
numbering on the original page the same, in effect, as the numbering by
the Roman numerals in the CP version. Hence it is possible that, although
there are no Roman numerals on the original, the ones on the CP version could be
based on the numbering used on the original and very probably are, and therefore
possible that the Roman numerals are justified as well in the sense that they
reflect the original numbering. But that is true only if we suppose that
the numerals on the original were put there by Peirce. But since they were
put there after the drawing was otherwise completed, it is also possible that
they were put there by the editors, too, in which case the Roman numerals are
only an editorial artifact. as we first conjectured.
6. This also supposes, though, that the
line with the arrowheads at both ends that is presumably used to indicate the
need to interchange the boxes is also an editorial artifact. But what if
that line was put there by Peirce? In that case, the Roman numerals
would be justified as an ordering device after all even if due entirely to
editors, supposing that Peirce intended to number them at all.
7. But did he intend to number them at
all?
8. And who is responsible for the idea of
the interchange? Peirce himself or his editors? There may be some
clue to that in the editorial comments to be found in the CP which are attached
to paragraphs 2.235n and 2.243n.
9. For what it is worth, I have not yet
worked with those comments in the CP, but I do notice that in my copy of the CP
I made a note to myself many years ago adjacent to the beginning of the
note 2.235n, when I was studying this material closely at that time,
that says: "This is not what Peirce is saying above", meaning that I did
not at that time think that what the editors were interpreting Peirce as
saying in 2.235 was in fact correct. I no longer recall why
I said this, but I seemed to have spotted something I took to be wrong in
the editorial understanding at that time.
Joe Ransdell
|
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006
--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
