Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Gary F, Helmut, Jerry, List, Thanks, Gary, for that quotation. I often search CP and EP before commenting on Peirce's terms, and I admit that I should have done that. I agree that in Peirce's quotation for "positive qualitative possibility", it is a useful term -- especially in the context of three modes of being. CSP: They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in the future. (CP 1.23) But in the context of ATD's slide 25 (and later), the word 'diagram' is a kind of "positive qualitative possibility" that is (1) an icon, (2) a general way of representing mathematical structures and patterns, (3) a basis for necessary (mathematical) reasoning, (4) a representation suitable for analogies and metaphors, and (5) an essential step in mappings to an open-ended variety of other representations, including algebraic notations, images of any kind, and the ordinary languages that people speak and write. Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well. I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Suppsupplement: If so, this would be claiming the existence or validity of a positive logic about possibility, with laws not producing possibilities, but limiting possibility. Examples for positive logic, and the case, that a positive possibility exists: Theistic: The correct translation in the Bible of the cosmological beginning: "Tohu Va Bohu", everything was possible, but in total disorder, until God intervened. Nontheistic: Peirce´s tychism. Evolution cannot start from absolutely nothing. Examples for negative logic: Theistic: The incorrect translation of the beginning in the Bible: "Vast and empty". Nontheistic: Hegel´s explanation for the start of dialectic evolution: Nothing could not be without being "the nothing", and as such it existed, but if something exists, it is not nothing anymore, but something. The something then steps into a dialectical relation with the nothing, and that leads to everything else. Supplement: I too can, but it is trivial: If something actually exists, or must exist due to a law, it of course must be possible. So maybe qualitative possibility is the set possibility without the sets instantiation an governance? Maybe not so trivial too: I cannot imagine a possibility without a law that produces it. Or is, without any law, everything possible? Gary F., List Thank you for the quote! I however cannot imagine any other kind. A possibility that is not a mode of being, that is not there? Do you know an example? Best, Helmut 23. August 2021 um 14:21 Uhr g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: John, Helmut, “Qualitative possibility” is the term Peirce used in the Lowell Lectures of 1903: CSP: My view is that there are three modes of being. I hold that we can directly observe them in elements of whatever is at any time before the mind in any way. They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in the future. (CP 1.23) In CP 1.25 he calls it “positive qualitative possibility.” I also quoted it from CP 1.533 in an earlier post. Since “Quality” is Peirce’s first choice for a word representing Firstness, it’s a natural choice in a context where he needs to distinguish it from other kinds of “possibility.” Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of John F. Sowa Sent: 22-Aug-21 22:30 To: Helmut Raulien Cc: h.raul...@gmx.de; g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 Helmut, Technical terms are important when a completely new concept has been invented for which there is no convenient term in the common vocabulary. If a new term is necessary, it's important to choose some combination of common words that is not likely to create ambiguities or confusions. There was some discussion about confusing implications of the word 'possibility'. That is why somebody suggested the adjective 'qualitative' in front of 'possibility'. I was not involved in the original discussion, but I agree that the term 'qualitative possibility' is a bad choice, for several reasons: (1) It's an unusual combination, whose intended meaning cannot be derived from the dictionary definitions of the two words, considered separately. (2) It was suggested as a term for an issue about Peirce's philosophy, but Peirce himself never used that combination. (3) Even for somebody who has studied Peirce's writings, the intended meaning of the combination is not clear. Finally, I suggested the word 'diagram', one of Peirce's favorite terms, which could be used in discussions of the issues that were raised. The word diagram does *not* mean 'qualitative possibility' (whatever that may mean). But that is a huge advantage. The word 'diagram' steers the discussion into clear, precise issues instead of some vague talk about qualitative possibilities. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ��� 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ��� PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► P
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Supplement: I too can, but it is trivial: If something actually exists, or must exist due to a law, it of course must be possible. So maybe qualitative possibility is the set possibility without the sets instantiation an governance? Maybe not so trivial too: I cannot imagine a possibility without a law that produces it. Or is, without any law, everything possible? Gary F., List Thank you for the quote! I however cannot imagine any other kind. A possibility that is not a mode of being, that is not there? Do you know an example? Best, Helmut 23. August 2021 um 14:21 Uhr g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: John, Helmut, “Qualitative possibility” is the term Peirce used in the Lowell Lectures of 1903: CSP: My view is that there are three modes of being. I hold that we can directly observe them in elements of whatever is at any time before the mind in any way. They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in the future. (CP 1.23) In CP 1.25 he calls it “positive qualitative possibility.” I also quoted it from CP 1.533 in an earlier post. Since “Quality” is Peirce’s first choice for a word representing Firstness, it’s a natural choice in a context where he needs to distinguish it from other kinds of “possibility.” Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of John F. Sowa Sent: 22-Aug-21 22:30 To: Helmut Raulien Cc: h.raul...@gmx.de; g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 Helmut, Technical terms are important when a completely new concept has been invented for which there is no convenient term in the common vocabulary. If a new term is necessary, it's important to choose some combination of common words that is not likely to create ambiguities or confusions. There was some discussion about confusing implications of the word 'possibility'. That is why somebody suggested the adjective 'qualitative' in front of 'possibility'. I was not involved in the original discussion, but I agree that the term 'qualitative possibility' is a bad choice, for several reasons: (1) It's an unusual combination, whose intended meaning cannot be derived from the dictionary definitions of the two words, considered separately. (2) It was suggested as a term for an issue about Peirce's philosophy, but Peirce himself never used that combination. (3) Even for somebody who has studied Peirce's writings, the intended meaning of the combination is not clear. Finally, I suggested the word 'diagram', one of Peirce's favorite terms, which could be used in discussions of the issues that were raised. The word diagram does *not* mean 'qualitative possibility' (whatever that may mean). But that is a huge advantage. The word 'diagram' steers the discussion into clear, precise issues instead of some vague talk about qualitative possibilities. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ��� 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ��� PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Gary F., List Thank you for the quote! I however cannot imagine any other kind. A possibility that is not a mode of being, that is not there? Do you know an example? Best, Helmut 23. August 2021 um 14:21 Uhr g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: John, Helmut, “Qualitative possibility” is the term Peirce used in the Lowell Lectures of 1903: CSP: My view is that there are three modes of being. I hold that we can directly observe them in elements of whatever is at any time before the mind in any way. They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in the future. (CP 1.23) In CP 1.25 he calls it “positive qualitative possibility.” I also quoted it from CP 1.533 in an earlier post. Since “Quality” is Peirce’s first choice for a word representing Firstness, it’s a natural choice in a context where he needs to distinguish it from other kinds of “possibility.” Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of John F. Sowa Sent: 22-Aug-21 22:30 To: Helmut Raulien Cc: h.raul...@gmx.de; g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 Helmut, Technical terms are important when a completely new concept has been invented for which there is no convenient term in the common vocabulary. If a new term is necessary, it's important to choose some combination of common words that is not likely to create ambiguities or confusions. There was some discussion about confusing implications of the word 'possibility'. That is why somebody suggested the adjective 'qualitative' in front of 'possibility'. I was not involved in the original discussion, but I agree that the term 'qualitative possibility' is a bad choice, for several reasons: (1) It's an unusual combination, whose intended meaning cannot be derived from the dictionary definitions of the two words, considered separately. (2) It was suggested as a term for an issue about Peirce's philosophy, but Peirce himself never used that combination. (3) Even for somebody who has studied Peirce's writings, the intended meaning of the combination is not clear. Finally, I suggested the word 'diagram', one of Peirce's favorite terms, which could be used in discussions of the issues that were raised. The word diagram does *not* mean 'qualitative possibility' (whatever that may mean). But that is a huge advantage. The word 'diagram' steers the discussion into clear, precise issues instead of some vague talk about qualitative possibilities. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ��� 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ��� PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
RE: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
John, Helmut, "Qualitative possibility" is the term Peirce used in the Lowell Lectures of 1903 <https://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm> : CSP: My view is that there are three modes of being. I hold that we can directly observe them in elements of whatever is at any time before the mind in any way. They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in the future. (CP 1.23) In CP 1.25 he calls it "positive qualitative possibility." I also quoted it from CP 1.533 in an earlier post. Since "Quality" is Peirce's first choice for a word representing Firstness, it's a natural choice in a context where he needs to distinguish it from other kinds of "possibility." Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of John F. Sowa Sent: 22-Aug-21 22:30 To: Helmut Raulien Cc: h.raul...@gmx.de; g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 Helmut, Technical terms are important when a completely new concept has been invented for which there is no convenient term in the common vocabulary. If a new term is necessary, it's important to choose some combination of common words that is not likely to create ambiguities or confusions. There was some discussion about confusing implications of the word 'possibility'. That is why somebody suggested the adjective 'qualitative' in front of 'possibility'. I was not involved in the original discussion, but I agree that the term 'qualitative possibility' is a bad choice, for several reasons: (1) It's an unusual combination, whose intended meaning cannot be derived from the dictionary definitions of the two words, considered separately. (2) It was suggested as a term for an issue about Peirce's philosophy, but Peirce himself never used that combination. (3) Even for somebody who has studied Peirce's writings, the intended meaning of the combination is not clear. Finally, I suggested the word 'diagram', one of Peirce's favorite terms, which could be used in discussions of the issues that were raised. The word diagram does *not* mean 'qualitative possibility' (whatever that may mean). But that is a huge advantage. The word 'diagram' steers the discussion into clear, precise issues instead of some vague talk about qualitative possibilities. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
List: > On Aug 22, 2021, at 9:29 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > I suggested the word 'diagram', one of Peirce's favorite terms, which could > be used in discussions of the issues that were raised. The word diagram does > *not* mean 'qualitative possibility' (whatever that may mean). But that is a > huge advantage. The word 'diagram' steers the discussion into clear, precise > issues instead of some vague talk about qualitative possibilities. This suggested substitutions are problematic from a chemist’s point of view. Without going into the technical details, I note that semantic proof theories are rare in the logic of both mathematical and chemical diagrams. The term “qualitative possibilities”, in the pragmatic methodologies of the biomedical sciences, is essential to “tweaking” the structures a little bit in order to explore the neighboring illations for cause and effect. For concrete examples, consider the therapeutic drugs, where a large number of “statins” or ‘antibiotics” or other bio-similars were discovered based on the qualitative possibilities. It is easy to understand the deep need for mathematical definitions that express “all - or - none” pairs of logical terms. And such a need exist in the formal logic of sin-signs. But the formal logic of sin-signs also need to generate exact distinctions between very small differences and hence the acute need for “qualitative differences”. Cheers Jerry _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Jerry, List, I strongly agree that the term 'qualitative possibility' is a good term for the applications you mentioned. I would never suggest the word 'diagram' as a replacement for the term 'qualitative possibility' in those contexts. My recommendation is a revision (copied below) of slide 25 by ADT with the version I wrote immediately below that. ADT did not use the word 'qualitatve possibility', but other people suggested it in other email notes. Re the discussion with Helmut: He was discussing the use of the term 'qualitative possibility' in connection with ADT's slides. That is not a term that Peirce or ADT used. And I believe that the word 'diagram' is best for clarifying ADT's slide 25.John The original slide 25 by ADT: Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in experience. Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage. We want to sort out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises and disguises. As a point of method, however, given that mathematics is the first stage of research in the heuristic schema, how do we transition out of it into a concern no longer detached from but attached to the conditions sustaining the cosmos, the world, nature, A revised version of ADT's slide 25 by JFS Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, the phenomenologist must map any mathematical interpretation to a diagram that can help us figure out what goes on in experience. Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage. We want to sort out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises and disguises. After a diagram is derived by mathematical methods, the methods of normative science would address the conditions that relate it to the cosmos, the world, nature. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Helmut, Technical terms are important when a completely new concept has been invented for which there is no convenient term in the common vocabulary. If a new term is necessary, it's important to choose some combination of common words that is not likely to create ambiguities or confusions. There was some discussion about confusing implications of the word 'possibility'. That is why somebody suggested the adjective 'qualitative' in front of 'possibility'. I was not involved in the original discussion, but I agree that the term 'qualitative possibility' is a bad choice, for several reasons: (1) It's an unusual combination, whose intended meaning cannot be derived from the dictionary definitions of the two words, considered separately. (2) It was suggested as a term for an issue about Peirce's philosophy, but Peirce himself never used that combination. (3) Even for somebody who has studied Peirce's writings, the intended meaning of the combination is not clear. Finally, I suggested the word 'diagram', one of Peirce's favorite terms, which could be used in discussions of the issues that were raised. The word diagram does *not* mean 'qualitative possibility' (whatever that may mean). But that is a huge advantage. The word 'diagram' steers the discussion into clear, precise issues instead of some vague talk about qualitative possibilities. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Supplement: What distinguishes the mammal-mouse-subset-relation from the possibility-exist-relation, is, that possibility always is the possibility of existence. This is the reason, why the statement may be regarded for true for terms. I dont see, how introducing a "qualitative possibility" could change that. To classify different kinds of possibility, the tenses past, present, future could apply (though this rather relates to the existence, not the possibility as such), or the distinction between hypothetical and inductive possibility. Hypothetical (abductive) possibility cannot have a value, and inductive possibility may have one, vaguely estimated or exactly calculated, and is then as well probability. John, List The term "possibility" in a global-universal context suggests secondness. But in a limited context, it doesnt have to. For example, a planet may be found, which has the properties to say that life is possible there. But when astronauts go there, they see that there is no life. In the universal statement "possibility implies a relation to what exists", this relation being one of terms (ordinary English) needs the additonal premiss, that there exist things that exist. Mathematically it is a subset-relation between possibility and what exists, given too, that there are existing things, otherwise the subset would be empty, and the relation merely virtual. But possibility (the superset) does not imply this relation, but the subset (what exists) does. Just like an animal being a mouse (subset of mammals) implies that it is a mammal, but not the other way. The relation between possibility and what exists is the reflexive relation of what exists. "Possibility implies a relation to what exists" is mathematically false, because possibility does not imply that. "The term "Possibility" implies a relation to the term "what exists"" is true, but only with the additional premiss, that there are things that exist. "Possibility implies a relation to what possibly exists" would be true both with sets and terms, and without additional premiss. But it is a tautology with the relation identity. I am not so mathematically skilled, so I hope I have not made a mistake. Best, Helmut 22. August 2021 um 06:14 Uhr "John F. Sowa" wrote: Helmut, List, JFS: I agree with Gary that "there are no perfect choices when it comes to naming such things" and we should "weed out the choices most likely to cause confusion." HR: But if we weed out too many terms, we may not be able to talk anymore! Can we not instead "count on mathematicians" to tell us, how we should define and use "possibility" and "relation"? The objection to the word 'possibility' was that it suggests a kind of Secondnesss, since it would involve a dyadic relation to something else. My proposed revision to ADT's slide is to bring back Peirce's word 'diagram', which is one of his favorite terms. Since every diagram is an icon, it belongs to the first member of (icon, index, symbol). It's true that a diagram may also be considered as a possibility, but by itself, it's a first. The aspect of Secondness only occurs after somebody deliberately chooses it as a description of something else. Instead of the new terms that ADT proposed, I said that his slide 25 could be stated more clearly and simply by bringing back the word 'diagram'. See below for ADT's original slide 25. After that is my revised version of slide 25. And just now, I thought of an even simpler version of ADT's last sentence. See my new version at the bottom. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ â–º 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 . â–º To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . â–º PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signof
