Jerry, Jeff, List,
this problem has long been a mystery to me, and I have often changed my opinion, whether object or representamen is first or second. At last i had made up an interpretation, which I would like you all to ask if it is ok. It is like this: Starting from the irreduciblity-claim, neither of the three sign parts (representamen, object, interpretant) can be first, second, or third in temporal sense, because if the triad made of them is irreducible, neither of them can exist alone. Determination and causality are both functions of temporality, so there cannot be a first,second, third in determination-sense or causality-sense either. Not even the dynamical object, although it is located outside of the sign, can be first, because it is only then a dynamical object, when the sign is on. But surely there are things that are first, second, third. These are the events and entities which are about to become a representamen or an object. Eg, there is an event, something is happening. There also is a number of entities (things, subjects...) within the reach of this event (in its event horizon). One of these entities is changed by the event. Now the event is a representamen, the affected entity is an object, and the change is an interpretant. Now one might say, that the representamen was first, but it is not correct: what was first in the sense of causality or determination, was the event, which later became a representamen. But on the other hand, one might say, that the entity, which later became an object, was first, because it had already existed, before the event occured. So, which way of seeing it is correct now? Both ways are about temporality. I would say: Regarding the act of determination or causality, by looking merely at the temporality that is a function of causality/determination, the event (later called representamen) is first. But looking just at temporality as such, as a scale, and not as a function of causality/determination, then in this absolute time scale the entity (later called object) is first. Was this confusing or clearing? I guess, you might say, that a representamen is not necessarily a former event, it can also be a thing, like a written word. But then id say, the event is reading it- so, the word is the sign vehicle (representamen-vehicle), but the representamen is the word in its reading mode. So in this case, the event in its nonrepresentamen mode is a very short one: already read, but not yet perceived. But before I am beginning to doubt everything I have just written, and I can feel this doubt arising just now, I say, so much fot that, and is there something to it?
Best,
Helmut
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. April 2016 um 01:40 Uhr
Von: "Jerry Rhee" <[email protected]>
An: "Jerry LR Chandler" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Brian Downard" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce on the Definition of Determination
Von: "Jerry Rhee" <[email protected]>
An: "Jerry LR Chandler" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Brian Downard" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce on the Definition of Determination
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 anIndex; 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 helpfulCheersJerry
-----------------------------
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 .
