Jon S, you wrote: “in subsequently rereading CP 2.235-236, I noticed that it implied the order of determination of the three correlates to be Third, Second, First; i.e., Interpretant, Object, Sign.”
But I don’t see how these two paragraphs imply anything at all about order of determination. Can you explain? Regarding Olsen’s point about the three later paragraphs, I agree, and in fact I made the same observation myself in a peirce-l post some time ago, as part of a close reading of NDTR. But I think that was before you joined the list. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 15-Apr-17 00:53 Gary F., List: Jappy's first chapter purports to spell out Peirce's 1903 theory of signs without any reference to his later writings, and it straightforwardly labels the three trichotomies as S, S-O, and S-I. From thumbing through the whole book, it looks like it does not say anything about Marty's category-theoretic approach that apparently took them to be S, S-O, and (S-O)-I. However, in subsequently rereading CP 2.235-236, I noticed that it implied the order of determination of the three correlates to be Third, Second, First; i.e., Interpretant, Object, Sign. This is why Hartshorne and Weiss suggested in a footnote that Peirce must have mistakenly switched "First Correlate" and "Third Correlate" in these two paragraphs. While investigating this further, I renewed my acquaintance with a 2000 Transactions article by Len Olsen, "On Peirce's Systematic Division of Signs," that defends Peirce's text. Olsen points out that Peirce actually defines three different ways of categorically dividing genuine triadic relations--by each of the three correlates (CP 2.238), by each of the three dyadic relations (CP 2.239), and by how the First Correlate determines the Third in respect to the Second (CP 2.241). Olsen then suggests--persuasively, I think--that the three 1903 trichotomies are obtained by following these distinct methods to divide respectively the Sign itself, the Sign-Object relation, and how the Sign determines the Interpretant in respect to the Object. Jappy's overall thesis, which I brought up on the List several months ago after reading a couple of his online papers, is that Peirce's entire theoretical framework for Sign classification changed significantly after 1903. I will be interested to see whether and how Jappy maintains, modifies, or discards the approach in NDTR based on Peirce's later writings. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:39 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> > wrote: Interesting, Jon. I noticed Jappy’s new book (about the 28 signs) but passed on it as too expensive, even the Kindle is over $100, and I don’t have access to a library that could get it for me. But that’s life in the backwoods. I look forward to hearing what you can glean from it. Gary f.
----------------------------- 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 http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
