----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:54
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the
ten classes of signs (corrected)
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
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:50
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing
the ten classes of signs (corrected)
"Peirce never put the roman numbers on his
original MS." ! I
am very happy reading this assertion of De Tienne, an very good expert of
the MS. Personally I was always astonashed that Peirce note the classes of signs with ordinals because
nothing cannot justify it since the natural order of the classes is the non
linear order of the 10-lattice.
In conclude, sometimes, the editors can be
"generators of mistakes" instead of "generators of
lattices"...
Robert Marty
http://robert.marty.perso.cegetel.net/
Dear Joe, list
The matter of the roman ordering numbers have always puzzled me. I
remember once asking De Tienne about it at the PEP and he told me that
Peirce never put the roman numbers on his
original MS. They are just another work of Hartshorne and Weiss to
make their point about how the classes of signs should be ordered in their
own view. I have never seen the original Syllabus MS but now that you have
mentioned again the "roman numbering problem", would like to know if you
or anyone can ascertain if Peirce did put these numbers or not.
Best,
Vinicius
---
Message from peirce-l forum to
subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date:
6/16/2006
