Letters to lady Welby need to be interpreted and evaluated on the basis to whom they were addressed to. Lady Welby was highly interested in sign classifications. Classifications were a dominant topic at the times, in vogue. (Remnants of this vogue are still effective.) - Peirce was explaining her about his earlier work and results on the topic, as best he could. Also following the rules of polite correspondence (by then) and taking her interests (Welby's Significs) to the foreground.

As evidence backing up interpretations on CSP's then current main interests, works at hand, I find Welby correspondence necessarily weak. Not strong, that is.



kirst...@saunalahti.fi kirjoitti 6.8.2017 10:39:

I did not claim that CSP in any way REJECTED the results of his work
with sign classifications.

g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 5.8.2017 19:52:
I've been looking for some evidence which would support Kirsti's claim
that "It is a historical fact that CSP left his work on sign
classifications aside and proceeded towards other aims."

I haven't found such evidence, but if Peirce actually did that, he
must have done it in 1909 or later. One of the main sources for
Peirce's classification of sign types is his letter to Lady Welby
drafted in late December 1908 (SS 73-86, EP2:478-491, CP 8.342-79). It
was here that he set out his "ten main trichotomies of signs."

In 1909-10, many of the pieces that Peirce drafted were entitled by
him to indicate they were about either "definition" (i.e. "logical
analysis") or "meaning." Many of these deal with definitions of "sign"
and of sign types. Here is one example from a 1910 manuscript entitled

[[ The word Sign will be used to denote an Object perceptible, or only
imaginable, or even unimaginable in one sense--for the word "_fast_,"
which is a Sign, is not imaginable, since it is not _this word itself_
that can be set down on paper or pronounced, but only _an instance_ of
it, and since it is the very same word when it is written as it is
when it is pronounced, but is one word when it means "rapidly" and
quite another when it means "immovable," and a third when it refers to
abstinence. But in order that anything should be a Sign, it must
"represent," as we say, something else, called its _Object,_ although
the condition that a Sign must be other than its Object is perhaps
arbitrary, since, if we insist upon it we must at least make an
exception in the case of a Sign that is a part of a Sign. Thus nothing
prevents the actor who acts a character in an historical drama from
carrying as a theatrical "property" the very relic that that article
is supposed merely to represent, such as the crucifix that Bulwer's
Richelieu holds up with such effect in his defiance. On a map of an
island laid down upon the soil of that island there must, under all
ordinary circumstances, be some position, some point, marked or not,
that represents _qua_ place on the map, the very same point _qua_
place on the island.

A sign may have more than one Object. Thus, the sentence "Cain killed
Abel," which is a Sign, refers at least as much to Abel as to Cain,
even if it be not regarded as it should, as having _"a killing"_ as a
third Object. But the set of objects may be regarded as making up one
complex Object. In what follows and often elsewhere Signs will be
treated as having but one object each for the sake of dividing
difficulties of the study. If a Sign is other than its Object, there
must exist, either in thought or in expression, some explanation or
argument or other context, showing how--upon what system or for what
reason the Sign represents the Object or set of Objects that it does.
Now the Sign and the Explanation together make up another Sign, and
since the explanation will be a Sign, it will probably require an
additional explanation, which taken together with the already enlarged
Sign will make up a still larger Sign; and proceeding in the same way,
we shall, or should, ultimately reach a Sign of itself, containing its
own explanation and those of all its significant parts; and according
to this explanation each such part has some other part as its Object.
According to this every Sign has, actually or virtually, what we may
call a _Precept_ of explanation according to which it is to be
understood as a sort of emanation, so to speak, of its Object. (If the
Sign be an Icon, a scholastic might say that the _"species"_ of the
Object emanating from it found its matter in the Icon. If the Sign be
an Index, we may think of it as a fragment torn away from the Object,
the two in their Existence being one whole or a part of such whole. If
the Sign is a Symbol, we may think of it as embodying the _"ratio,"_
or reason, of the Object that has emanated from it. These, of course,
are mere figures of speech; but that does not render them useless.) ]
CP2.230 (1910) ]

This text has a lot to say about meaning, but it obviously maintains a
focus on signs and various types and functions of signs. If someone
can provide an even later Peirce text that discusses meaning but
dispenses with the focus on signs, I could take that as supporting
Kirsti's claim about "historical fact." Otherwise I don't think that
claim stands up to scrutiny.

Gary f.

} I must follow up these continual lessons of the air, water, earth, I
perceive I have no time to lose. [Walt Whitman] {

http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [1] }{ _Turning Signs_ gateway

-----Original Message-----
From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
Sent: 5-Aug-17 07:00

Jerry, list,

It is a historical fact that CSP left his work on sign classifications
aside and proceeded towards other aims. My firm conviction is that he
found that way a dead end. - Anyone is free to disagree. - But please,
leave me out of any expectations of participating in further
discussions on the topic.



[1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/

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 .

Reply via email to