[peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)

[Benjamin Udell]

Joe, Vinicius, Robert, list,   My initial reaction was that Peirce had added the numbers but then I came generally to the same conclusions as Joe.   It sure would be nice to have a color copy. I tend to think that at least the line-boxes themselves were drawn by Peirce (the chart _is_ on graph paper). Anyway, the editors wrote "all red ink except as noted." So if the line between the centeral and bottom boxes is in red ink, it's probably Peirce's line, right? Otherwise perhaps the editors' line.   I was looking closely at Box 10, and wondering whether Peirce had written "Symbolic" and the editors put an arrowhead (to indicate brown ink) or whether he had written "Symbolical" with the "cal" a bit squished. But looking at the whole classification, the words marked as being in brown ink are generally the ones which Peirce noted were superfluous for identifying the classes. So I think that that probably _is_ an editor's arrowhead next to "Symbolic". Brown-for-superfluous would also explain the variations between "symbolic" and "symbol" as well as the choice of the noun form "argument."  Just got Joe's latest post to peirce-l. Looking forward to the further images! - Best, Ben   ----- Original Message ----- From: Joseph Ransdell To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 8:54 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected) Vinicius, Robert, and list:   I take it that you have received in the previous message the image of the original MS version of the boxed triangle, in MS 799.02 (i.e. the second page in the MS 799 folder).  Notice the following:   1.  There are no Roman numerals, so that is clearly an editorial artifact (Hartshorne and Weiss).    2.  The numerals "1" through "10" appear instead, but seem clearly to have been added after the image was drawn and the names of the sign classes were entered, raising the question of whether they are due to Peirce or to some later editors.  (More on this below)   3.  The numerals associated with the boxes differ in one respect from the Roman numerals that were editorially added in the CP version, namely, in respect to the boxes at the middle and the bottom of the pyramid   4.  The names assigned to the boxes also differ in that same respect.  Thus both the boxes and the numerals associated with them have been, in effect, interchanged in the transition from the original drawing to the version in the CP.     5.  Someone has indicated with the line with an arrowhead at both ends that an interchange should be made, i.e. it seems very likely that this is the meaning of that line.   5.  This interchange makes the numbering on the original page the same, in effect,  as the numbering by the Roman numerals in the CP version.  Hence it is possible that, although there are no Roman numerals on the original, the ones on the CP version could be based on the numbering used on the original and very probably are, and therefore possible that the Roman numerals are justified as well in the sense that they reflect the original numbering.  But that is true only if we suppose that the numerals on the original were put there by Peirce.  But since they were put there after the drawing was otherwise completed, it is also possible that they were put there by the editors, too, in which case the Roman numerals are only an editorial artifact. as we first conjectured.   6.  This also supposes, though, that the line with the arrowheads at both ends that is presumably used to indicate the need to interchange the boxes is also an editorial artifact.  But what if that line was put there by Peirce?   In that case, the Roman numerals would be justified as an ordering device after all even if due entirely to editors, supposing that Peirce intended to number them at all.    7.  But did he intend to number them at all?   8.  And who is responsible for the idea of the interchange?  Peirce himself or his editors?  There may be some clue to that in the editorial comments to be found in the CP which are attached to paragraphs 2.235n and 2.243n.    9.  For what it is worth, I have not yet worked with those comments in the CP, but I do notice that in my copy of the CP I made a note to myself many years ago adjacent to the beginning of the note 2.235n, when I was studying this material closely at that time, that says: "This is not what Peirce is saying above", meaning that I did  not at that time think that what the editors were interpreting Peirce as saying in 2.235 was in fact correct.  I no longer recall why I said this, but I seemed to have spotted something I took to be wrong in the editorial understanding at that time.    Joe Ransdell    ----- Original Message ----- From: robert marty To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:50 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected) "Peirce never put the roman numbers on his original MS." ! I am very happy reading this assertion of De Tienne, an very good expert of the MS. Personally I was always astonashed that Peirce note the classes of signs with ordinals because nothing cannot justify it since the natural order of the classes is the non linear order of the 10-lattice. In conclude, sometimes, the editors can be "generators of mistakes" instead of "generators of lattices"... Robert Marty http://robert.marty.perso.cegetel.net/ -----Message d'origine----- De : VinXcius Romanini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : samedi 17 juin 2006 01:51 À : Peirce Discussion Forum Objet : [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected) Dear Joe, list The matter of the roman ordering numbers have always puzzled me. I remember once asking De Tienne about it at the PEP and he told me that Peirce never put the roman numbers on his original MS. They are just another work of Hartshorne and Weiss to make their point about how the classes of signs should be ordered in their own view. I have never seen the original Syllabus MS but now that you have mentioned again the "roman numbering problem", would like to know if you or anyone can ascertain if Peirce did put these numbers or not. Best, Vinicius --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com