Frances to Joe and others...
There is a tendency for me to equate immediate or immediacy with
all metaphysical quiddities and representamens that are not signs, as
well as with all categorical primaries and firstnesses or firsts and
qualities that exist to sense, but especially to align them with
Dear List:
in respect for fund raising for the edition of CSP's papers, the Peirce Edition Project at Indianapolis
is always in search of funds, Nathan Houser and everybody else there are working a lot for the work on
the CSP's papers.
more info can be found at their website:
Gary Richmond wrote:
Ben, list,
It seems to me that you are quite right about the distinctly
un-English use of the ordinals 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' by
Peirce in the passages being considered. Capitalization is used for
'terms defined' as he writes, for example, at the beginning of the
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Here is a verifying passage:, from the neglected Argument paper
Peirce: CP 6.452
The word God, so capitalized (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Aw Jim, you're a trouble maker!
66~~
*A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of detemining a Third, called its _Interpretant, to assume the same
Ben wrote:
Aw Jim, you're a trouble maker!
66~~
*A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine
triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of
detemining a Third, called its _Interpretant, to assume the same triadic
relation to its
itself may be some other
difference of course.
Kind regards,
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag 23 juni 2006 8:22
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Gary, Joe, list
Jim, Ben, List,
Jim Piat wrote:
Yes, but Peirce also wrote (chapter 20 Trichotomic of The
Essential Peirce Vol 1 page 281 line two of paragraph two) that "A
sign is a third mediating between the mind addressed and the object
represented".
So I find this confusing.
There are so many
PS I should have added this excerpt in relation to the TRICHOTOMIC
passage as it reminds us that categorial Thirdness == mediation and
that all three elements in a genuine trichotomic relationship mediate
between the other two in some sense.
CP 1.328 I. . .. Thirdness, in the sense of the
Gary Richmond wrote:
...btw, do you or anyone else
know of any other place where he refers to 'sign' as a third?) I know
only of this one, which I think may illuminate the passage being
considered in so far as Peirce notes that "in genuine Thirdness, the
first, the second, and the third
Dear Joe and Frances,
This is not directly to your concerns but may be of some related interest:
On page 106 of Volume 1 of the Essential Peirce (chapter 6 --On a New Class
of Observations, Suggested by the Principles of Logic) I find the following
Peirce QUOTE:
It is usually admited
to answer
you with the same point that Ben made and didn't want to feel required to
duplicate it.
Joe
.
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Marc Orliaguet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:18 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I was intending to warn Ben against adopting a bullying tone toward you, as
his frustration seemed to be mounting. Perhaps a mistake on my part but a
response in part to your own complaints about his tone, which you were
construing as an attempt to silence you. Also I
before answering, I'd like to comment on an obvious confusion (see below)
Benjamin Udell wrote:
[...]
-- are defined by reference to the Sign, the Object, and the
Interpretant, respectively. The Sign is the First, the Object is the
Second, and the Interpretant is the Third. In CP227-229,
Jean-Marc, list
It is unfortunate that Peirce used the terms 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' in
the place of ordinals when he used the same vocabulary for the categories.
In the texts that you chose the terms do not refer to categories, they simply
refer to 3 things presented in a given
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc, list
It is unfortunate that Peirce used the terms 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' in
the place of ordinals when he used the same vocabulary for the categories.
In the texts that you chose the terms do not refer to categories, they simply refer to 3 things
Frances to Ben and others...
In the decadic table or model, the ten classes of signs seem to deal
with immediate objects, and dynamic objects, and sparse selections of
immediate and dynamic and final interpretants. The decagon does not
seem to deal with immediate representamens whatsoever, except
Dear Ben, Jean-Marc, list--
For what its worth, it also struck me that Peirce's use of the terms
first, second and third in the context cited by Jean-Marc is as
Jean-Marc suggests merely a way of indicating the three elements involved
when (A) Something --a sign, (B) stands for Something
: Jim Piat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:12 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Dear Ben, Jean-Marc, list--
For what its worth, it also struck me that Peirce's use of the terms first,
second
.
Joe Ransdell
.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:39 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Aw Jim, you're a trouble maker!
66~~
*A _Sign_
faculty or impotence to represent
it.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
I agree, Ben. Peirce
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Jean-Marc says:
I am surprised that you are claiming that the classes can be traversed
by a unique, natural, ordered sequence from 1 to 10 while at the same
time you claim to have come up with a structure similar to a lattice,
these are contradictory assertions.
REPLY:
I
Bernard Morand wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
the classification is obtained in a deductive the way, but the
sequence order is arbitrary.
let us say I want to classify a group of people according to 2
divisions:
- men / women (1st division)
- under age / adult (2nd division)
that's
I'd like to second what Joe says here,
[[ but my own interest in the classification system is not with what can
be learned from it by manipulating graphical models of it but with
understanding what use it might have when it comes to understanding how
to apply it in the analysis and
gnusystems wrote:
I'd like to second what Joe says here,
[[ but my own interest in the classification system is not with what can
be learned from it by manipulating graphical models of it but with
understanding what use it might have when it comes to understanding how
to apply it in the
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Marc Orliaguet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
gnusystems wrote:
I'd like to second what Joe says here,
[[ but my
in the
series monistic, dualistic).
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Jean-Marc, list,
I
PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Jean-Marc says:
I am surprised that you are claiming that the classes can be traversed
by a unique, natural
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
The numbers can be ignored altogether as far as I am concerned, or one could
use, say, the Greek alphabet instead of numbers or just leave the numbers off.
All that is important for me
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc, list,
I don't even agree in the end with Peirce's classification but it's pretty obvious that whether one partially or totally orders the 10 classes depends on the criteria. And it's pretty obvious that the trichotomies are ordered (or orderable) in a Peircean
Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:48 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc, list,
I don't even agree in the end with Peirce's classification but it's pretty
obvious that whether one partially or totally
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc,
I spoke of the three trichotomies, not the five or six or ten. If you don't
address what's said, why do you bother sending posts to a place like peirce-l?
If you do not address this structure, specifically,
the 1st trichotomy pertains to the sign's own
peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:19 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc,
I spoke of the three trichotomies, not the five or six or ten. If you don't
address what's said, why do you bother sending posts
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc,
I spoke of the three trichotomies, not the five or six or ten. If you
don't address what's said, why do you bother sending posts to a place
like peirce-l?
If you do not address this structure, specifically,
the 1st trichotomy
Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Marc Orliaguet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jean-Marc, list,
I don't even agree
my typos. I
meant,"In that case (3,2) would be a (2) concretive (3) legisign and (2,2)
would be a (2) concretive (2) sinsign,..."- Best, Ben
Udell
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Ransdell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" peirce-l
: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of
triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Jean-Marc:
In reading Joe's response to you, I am reminded that you still haven't
taken a stand on the three main trichotomies and their categorial
correlations. If you do in fact understand the correlations, you may feel
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
the classification is obtained in a deductive the way, but the
sequence order is arbitrary.
let us say I want to classify a group of people according to 2 divisions:
- men / women (1st division)
- under age / adult (2nd division)
that's 4 classes, OK?
if I
J-MO = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
JR = Joseph Ransdell
J-M:
Also note that the various trichotomies are not ordered. It is purely a
convention to call a trichotomy the first, second, or third trichotomy,
etc. So deducing an ordering of the classes from that information only,
as it has been done many
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
J-MO = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
JR = Joseph Ransdell
J-M:
Also note that the various trichotomies are not ordered. It is purely a
convention to call a trichotomy the first, second, or third trichotomy,
etc. So deducing an ordering of the classes from that information only,
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Gary, Joe, list,
I downloaded the chapter from Merkle's dissertation last night and it
downloaded quite quickly compared to the daytime when the Internet is
busier. What graphics! Very little in the way of my shadings, very
much in the way of exactness and complexity.
Jean-Marc says:
For the record, it must be added that a lot of the information found in
this very exhaustive piece of work has readily been available to
researchers since the 80s and before, including the work done by Robert
Marty on lattices (see the chapter on 'partially ordered sets' for an
: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:45 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Looking at all three triangles, I get to feeling that it's unlikely that
Pierce, having included no numbers
t;4" seems pretty sure.
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Ransdell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes
(MS799.2)
Ben and
looked mainly at the graphics.
- Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce
Discussion Forum Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:01 PMSubject: [peirce-l]
Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Ben, Joe, list,
I would highly recommend for those interested in further exploring
Image came through beautifully!
Look carefully at the MS799.2 triangle of boxes and you can that the numbers
are change from an earlier set of numbers. I originally thought that the little
earlier numeral 8 was an extra numeral 3
CURRENT:
1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10
~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9
~~ 3 ~ 7
~~~ 4
EARLIER:
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
[image here]
On the high-res picture it is clear that the annotations were added
afterwards. Compare the line style of the figures and letters (1, 2, 3,
... B) with Peirce's thicker more irregular feather pen's style. The
handwriting is differently too compared with
work, Joe! Thanks for these images of Peirce's own writing.
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:01 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Image
Jean-Marc,
The reference is to the ink color - the brown colored text indicated in
two ways - the rest is in red ink. The note maker appears to be
identifying that Peirce used two colors of ink. The Brown ink calls out:
1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/8.
4. Indexical
5. Rhematic
6.
@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Ok..so...are these actual original notes of Peirce to be found at Harvard?
And can they be reviewed by scholars? If so I would be interested to go
there maybe some time and review it. Better
Sorry, on closer inspection that should read:
1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/5. Rhematic
4. Indexical
5/8. Legisign
6.
7.
8/3.
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign
540.17 highlighs in the same locations:
1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/5. Rhematic
4.
5/8. Legisign
6. Indexical
7.
8/3.
9.
,
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Wilfred and the list:
The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies
17, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Ok..so...are these actual original notes of Peirce to be found at Harvard?
And can they be reviewed by scholars? If so I would be interested to go
there maybe some time and review it. Better to have seen it first
Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates
collection.
Kind regards,
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Wilfred and the list:
The MS pages reproduced here
see ;-).
Kind regards,
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Steven Ericsson Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 23:36
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
My understanding is that this would
56 matches
Mail list logo
