Jeff, I'm sure I must be missing something here, so I'd better take it one
question at a time ...
When you say (iii) that "I determines (O-S)", does that mean that the
Interpretant determines the Object-Sign relation? That would seem to mean
that the Interpretant determines whether the sign is icon, index or symbol.
I don't see how that could work, but I don't see how else to read it.
Concerning the two sets of three trichotomies each outlined in the middle of
EP2:290, those are supposed to apply to triadic relations generally, but how
they would apply to Signs (i.e. to one type of correlate of one type of
triadic relation) is not clear, because at this point Peirce has not yet
said anything about the order of determination, nor has he yet defined a
Representamen or a Sign (he does that a couple of paragraphs later,
commenting that "Signs are the only representamens that have been much
studied.") What we have in the rest of NDTR is ten types OF SIGNS defined
according to three trichotomies OF SIGNS. I don't see how either of the two
sets of ten classes OF TRIADIC RELATIONS mentioned on p.290 can be expected
to map onto the tenfold classification of SIGNS.
But I'll keep looking .
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
Sent: 16-Sep-16 17:33
Hi Gary F., Terry, List,
Here are three diagrams I am using to explore the relations of determination
between signs, objects and interpretants in the 10-fold classification
(circa 1903 in the "Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, So far
as They are Determined").
The small roman numerals in the first colored diagram are an attempt to
follow the order of the relations of determination, and to work out some
features of the key relations (e.g., of reference and representation) that
are determined according to these ordered patterns (or, more mathematical
The main idea I am trying to develop in the two colored diagrams is that
there are really two different sorts of triadic relations that result from
the relations of determination between objects, signs and interpretants. He
makes this clear in the middle of the page 290 in the EP, vol. 2. As far as
I can tell, little has been said about this this double feature in Peirce's
account. I'm highlighting this double feature with the branching arrow
giving rise to two sorts of triadic relations on the bottom half of the
"Triadic relations are in three ways divisible by trichotomy, according as
the First, Second, or Third Correlate, respectively, is a mere possibility,
and actual existent, or a law.
There will be besides a second similar division of triadic relations into
ten classes, according as the dyadic relations which they constitute between
either the First and Second Correlates, or the First and Third, or the
Second and Third are of the nature of possibilities, facts, or laws; and
these ten classes will be subdivided in different ways."
If you would, let me know if these diagrams help at all to clarify what he
might be saying here in NDTR--and/or where the diagrams might be leading me
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at