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 overview of why the linear representation of the classes of signs from 1 to 10 is a bit of a problem...
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 times including on this list, is incorrect. REPLY: It is not a matter of convention only: the three trichotomies are based on the difference between firstness, secondness, and thirdness, which is sufficient in itself to make the ordering of them as first, second, and third something having informative content of some possible importance. And I don't recall anyone deducing the ordering of the classes from that information only, though I may have overlooked such a demonstration. Could you be more specific about that? Peirce himself presents the ten classes in a certain sequence (CP 2.254-263) which is at least in large part deductive in character, though whether or not the deduction that occurs there is based on that information only depends upon what you mean by "that information only": what information, exactly? This is not nitpicking. The question of precisely what is going on there is an important one. 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
