[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

[Jean-Marc Orliaguet]

Benjamin Udell wrote: Aw Jim, you're a trouble maker! 66~~~~~~~~~~ *A _Sign_, or _Representamen_, is a First which stands in such genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _Object_, as to be capable of detemining a Third, called its _Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object.* ~~~~~~~~~~99 Normal English? With capitalization of the ordinals, no less? In English we would say a "given thing," "a second thing," etc. English is characterized by intransigent normalcy. So Peirce is going to use some capitalized ordinals without explicit referents, as if he were talking about Firsts, Seconds, & Thirds in the usual Peirce way, in order to say simply "something," "another thing," and "a third thing"? Peirce is complicated but he is not sadistic toward the reader. but that's exactly what Peirce says in 2.92: "A Sign is anything which is related to a Second thing, its Object, in respect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a Third thing, its Interpretant, into relation to the same Object, and that in such a way as to bring a Fourth into relation to that Object in the same form, ad infinitum." in other texts Peirce simply wrote "a Second ..." dropping the noun which he probably thought was redundant and did not add any information. Sometimes he writes explicitly "Category the Second", or "of the nature of the Second" - in that case there is no ambiguity that this is the category that he's referring to. it is ironic that a Frenchman has to teach you Peirce's English, isn't it ? ;-) /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com