Jeff, list:
In various writings by Peirce and by interpreters of Peirce, it is one, two, three; sign, object, interpretant. (c.f., Brent, http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/brent/PURSUING.HTM Yet, your interpretation of determination from the quote above says, object (one), sign (two), interpretant (three). Where’s the proof for which is *correct* or can *both be correct*? That is, how should we enter inquiry when we are received the finger (as the moon) and not the moon, itself? c.f., at 1:15 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDW6vkuqGLg Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < > [email protected]> wrote: > > First, an analysis of the essence of a sign, (stretching that word to its > widest limits, as *anything which, being determined by an object, > determines an interpretation to determination, through it, by the same > object*), leads to a proof that every sign is determined by its object, > either first, by partaking in the characters of the object, when I call the > sign an *Icon*; secondly, by being really and in its individual existence > connected with the individual object, when I call the sign an*Index*; > thirdly, by more or less approximate certainty that it will be interpreted > as denoting the object, in consequence of a habit (which term I use as > including a natural disposition), when I call the sign a *Symbol*. (CP, > 4.531) > > Peirce makes the following claim: All determination is by negation; we can > first recognize any character only by putting an object which possesses it > into comparison with an object which possesses it not. (CP 5.294) Having > examined a number of places where Peirce describes different sorts of > determination, one of the clearest sets of definitions and explanations are > found in an unpublished set of manuscript. In particular, MS 612 contains > a detailed analysis of the meaning of “determination,” “determined to > accord,” and “determined after.” Here are links to the manuscript pages and > (as yet unedited) transcriptions of the relevant passages in FromThePage: > > > List, > > It may be helpful to recognize that these writings are simply > re-statements and generalizations of the methods of chemical determination > as they stood in the latter part of the 19 th Century. > > In particular, the sentence: > > All determination is by negation; we can first recognize any character > only by putting an object which possesses it into comparison with an object > which possesses it not. > > > is absolutely essential as the first phase of erotetic logic. (What is > it?) > > Logically, many chemical elements are known to exist and are potential > precedences for the material at hand. > If you want to determine what is in a thing, one must eliminate everything > else. > The antecedent of the determination must be an object. Otherwise, no sign > exists. > And, no determination is possible. > > In the habits of chemists, various methods are given names. These methods > were not necessary specific and often inconsistent with one another so that > double and triple checking of questionable tests were necessary. > > The specific goal of determination was to reach a conclusion with regard > to the molecular formula (ratios of small whole numbers by weight of each > element that appears in the determination. > > The broad goal of the chemist must be constrained for application of the > semantics to non-material phenomena. > > > Hope this is helpful > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
