[peirce-l] Digitization of Peirce's work

[Bill Hall]

All,

I am not yet a Peirce scholar, but I do know a bit about Web technology and
its social capabilities. I agree that it is particularly important to
preserve Peirces work in a way that makes it accessible to a wide range of
scholars and interested parties.

Two avenues for doing this suggest themselves.

1. Contact the Internet Archive - they are particularly interested in
preservation and have mobile technology (and I seem to recall reading
something about an established facility in the Harvard Library). It may take
some work to identify who to contact, however I suggest starting with
http://www.archive.org/about/about.php.

2. The other possibility is to take advantage of Google's Library Project -
http://books.google.com/googleprint/library.html. This is also set up in the
Harvard Library.

If you can convince either of these organizations in the value of preserving
Peirce's body of work, they would be powerful allies in locating the
necessary funding.

I hope the idea is helpful.

Bill

William P. (Bill) Hall, PhD
Documentation & KM Systems Analyst
Head Office/Engineering
Nelson House Annex, Nelson Place
Williamstown, Vic. 3016 Australia
Tel: +61 3 9244 4820
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.tenix.com

Evolutionary Biology of Species and Organizations
URL: http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net/

Visiting Faculty Associate
University of Technology Sydney

Senior Fellow
Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society
History and Philosophy of Science
University of Melbourne
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.acsis.unimelb.edu.au/
---
[The] skyhook-skyscraper construction
of science from the roof down to the
yet unconstructed foundations [is]
possible because the behavior of the
system at each level [depends] on only
a very approximate, simplified,
abstracted characterization of the
system at the level next beneath.
H. Simon 1996 - The Science of the Artificial

- Original Message -
From: "Steven Ericsson Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


> I do not doubt the merit of the exercise - only the suggested source of
> funds.  Individual scholars on well understood "tracks" can get funding
> from a variety of sources - or so I am led to believe.  Project funding
> for something like this probably needs to come from within an
> institution that understands the merit.
>
> With respect,
> Steven
>
>
>
>
> Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen wrote:
> > Well I am pretty sure that a better understanding of Peirce can and will
> > lead to raising the standards of public education. It already has in
some
> > aspects of education. Think it would not be hard to make some convincing
> > discourse about importance of Peirce's discourses for past and current
and
> > future society.
> >
> > Like I stated in previous mail, even if Bill Gates Foundation is not
willing
> > to help, there will probably be other sources. But, like I said, it
would
> > first be needed in my opinion to at least have real figures about costs
for
> > digitalization. Then some good preparation about what to say and how to
say
> > so (some good rhetoric) to get the money. And this is not about some
> > arbitrary scholarly endeavors it is about very relevant philosophical
> > material that will help lots of intellectuals to improve society and
also
> > education.
> >
> > I myself will also concentrate a lot on getting my PhD finished as soon
as
> > possible. And mention the relevance of CS Peirce's thoughts in it. This
does
> > not appear to be that helpful, but I just guess it will because of the
huge
> > relevance and impact of my findings. But well, we'll see ;-).
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Wilfred
> >
> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > Van: Steven Ericsson Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 23:36
> > Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
> > Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
> >
> > My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds
> > of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on
> > raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly
> > endeavors.
> >
> > With respect,
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > Joseph Ransdell wrote:
> >
> >> Wilfred says::
> >>
> >> "I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
> >> And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we
can.
> >> Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then
where
> >> the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give
it a
> >> try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
> >> happen."
> >>
> >> That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of
the
> >> fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of
> >>
> > Microsoft
> >
> >> and devoting himself exclusively to his and h

[peirce-l] testing

[poste as]

¨=¨=¨0O 
		Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Remarks on manuscripts

[Joseph Ransdell]

David and list:

I have to correct you about the photocopies, David.  Any photocopies that 
bear the stamped numbers you describe derive from a (paper) photocopy of the 
manuscripts which was made independently of the Robin microfilms and any 
photocopies derived from \it.  This second source of photocopies was created 
by a team of people from Texas Tech University in the Summer of 1974 (as I 
recall) who wanted to establish a new set of photocopies taken directly from 
the manuscripts which would contain information inscribed on them about the 
original which the black-and-white and relatively primitive photocopies of 
that time could not pick up from the original.   (The participants in that 
second copying of the originals were Max Fisch, Kenneth Ketner, Charles 
Hardwick, Joe Esposito, and Christian Kloesel, as I recall.)  That photocopy 
is still at Texas Tech in the Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism, and a 
copy made from it provided the basis for the copy or copies originally in 
use at the Peirce Edition Project in Indianapolis, though the latter has 
long since been augmented by photocopies of other manuscripts located at 
places other than Harvard.   The difference between the two distinct sets of 
first-generation paper photocopies (and their respective descendants) is 
that those derived from the Robin microfilm will not show the markings which 
were made on those derived from the 1974 photocopying project I describe 
above.  The rationale for this second copying was to make it unnecessary to 
go back to Harvard to pick up that additional information, and also to 
correct some mistakes made in the Robin microfilming.  It resulted in a 
degree of independence from Harvard not otherwise possible at that time.

I agree with what you say about the situation at the Harvard Library, but it 
may be possible to bypass the problems there by not depending upon any new 
scanning of the originals except for a few especially problematic 
manuscripts. It is not clear to me whether your comment that "The easiest 
access to Peirce's papers is of course to work directly from the Robin 
microfilms" is intended o bear upon that or not.

But I am running out of time today.  Thanks for the input, David, and I hope 
to hear more from you on these things..

Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "David Lachance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Remarks on manuscripts


Dear listers,

I hope I am not repeating anything that's been said before, in which
case I apologize, but here are just a few remarks on Peirce
manuscripts to avoid confusion. (Joseph's reply just arrived, as I
was writing this).

The two images here are (at least) second generation photocopies of
the Robin microfilms of Peirce's papers (held in Harvard's Houghton
library). These photocopies bear rubber-stamped numbers in the lower
righthand side corner indicating MS (799) and page no. (2), not
found of course on the originals. The MS no. also appears in pencil,
top left, in the hand of P. Weiss, written directly on the original.

Photocopies such as those submitted here often bear annotations about
ink color and such, since this information is lost after filming mss
in b/w. In the present case (say, the 1st image), the title "Ten
Classes of Signs", the arrows, the indications about brown and red
ink, etc. are NOT Peirce's. From what I can make out I would say the
numerals are his though.

When the Peirce edition Project publish a ms in the Writings,
everything that is not Peirce's is of course taken out, and important
information (such as the brown-red change in ink color by Peirce) is
noted so as to give the clearest possible idea of the appearance of
the original. Contrary to the Writings, neither the CP nor EP are
critical editions in the strict sense (although the latter are based
on the PEP's editorial work done for the Writings).

The easiest access to Peirce's papers is of course to work directly
from the Robin microfilms. I might be wrong but I think the Bill
Gates idea has been tried already (computer switch, name dropping and
all). As for digitization, Harvard Libraries are rather reluctant as
the rules for the protection of the manuscripts are quite strict; in
any case they wouldn't let just anyone bring in a scanner and do it,
obviously. Digital microfilm viewers/scanners are the easiest way to
view the microfilms onscreen, but there are copyright issues with the
scanning of the films, which remain Harvard's property.

David

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-

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

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

I do not doubt the merit of the exercise - only the suggested source of 
funds.  Individual scholars on well understood "tracks" can get funding 
from a variety of sources - or so I am led to believe.  Project funding 
for something like this probably needs to come from within an 
institution that understands the merit.


With respect,
Steven




Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen wrote:

Well I am pretty sure that a better understanding of Peirce can and will
lead to raising the standards of public education. It already has in some
aspects of education. Think it would not be hard to make some convincing
discourse about importance of Peirce's discourses for past and current and
future society.

Like I stated in previous mail, even if Bill Gates Foundation is not willing
to help, there will probably be other sources. But, like I said, it would
first be needed in my opinion to at least have real figures about costs for
digitalization. Then some good preparation about what to say and how to say
so (some good rhetoric) to get the money. And this is not about some
arbitrary scholarly endeavors it is about very relevant philosophical
material that will help lots of intellectuals to improve society and also
education. 


I myself will also concentrate a lot on getting my PhD finished as soon as
possible. And mention the relevance of CS Peirce's thoughts in it. This does
not appear to be that helpful, but I just guess it will because of the huge
relevance and impact of my findings. But well, we'll see ;-).

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Steven Ericsson Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 23:36

Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds 
of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on 
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly 
endeavors.


With respect,

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
  

Wilfred says::

"I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen."

That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of the 
fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of

Microsoft 
  
and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's philanthropical 
concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- and I will see to it



  
that it is investigated.   Foundations usually have an initial filtering 
system that can be checked out for possible entry into an inner sanctum 
where you might be permitted to make your case for support.  It seems to

be 
  

more the exception than the rule for them to leave it open enough for much



  

in the way of purely scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through

at 
  
this time, but there are ways of construing the interest which this 
particular project might have that might find some possibilities there. 
I'll see what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I 
find out soon.


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains")


insofar
  

as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard


Library,
  

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special


and
  

persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to 

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

[Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen]

Well I am pretty sure that a better understanding of Peirce can and will
lead to raising the standards of public education. It already has in some
aspects of education. Think it would not be hard to make some convincing
discourse about importance of Peirce's discourses for past and current and
future society.

Like I stated in previous mail, even if Bill Gates Foundation is not willing
to help, there will probably be other sources. But, like I said, it would
first be needed in my opinion to at least have real figures about costs for
digitalization. Then some good preparation about what to say and how to say
so (some good rhetoric) to get the money. And this is not about some
arbitrary scholarly endeavors it is about very relevant philosophical
material that will help lots of intellectuals to improve society and also
education. 

I myself will also concentrate a lot on getting my PhD finished as soon as
possible. And mention the relevance of CS Peirce's thoughts in it. This does
not appear to be that helpful, but I just guess it will because of the huge
relevance and impact of my findings. But well, we'll see ;-).

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Steven Ericsson Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 23:36
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds 
of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on 
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly 
endeavors.

With respect,

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
> Wilfred says::
>
> "I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
> And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
> Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
> the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
> try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
> happen."
>
> That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of the 
> fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of
Microsoft 
> and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's philanthropical 
> concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- and I will see to it

> that it is investigated.   Foundations usually have an initial filtering 
> system that can be checked out for possible entry into an inner sanctum 
> where you might be permitted to make your case for support.  It seems to
be 
> more the exception than the rule for them to leave it open enough for much

> in the way of purely scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through
at 
> this time, but there are ways of construing the interest which this 
> particular project might have that might find some possibilities there. 
> I'll see what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I 
> find out soon.
>
> Joe Ransdell
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
> Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
>
>
> I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
> And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
> Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
> the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
> try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
> happen.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Wilfred
>
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
> Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
> Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
>
> Wilfred and the list:
>
> The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
> manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains")
insofar
> as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard
Library,
>
> not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
> them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of
> pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
> philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of
> the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
> eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special
and
>
> persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.
>
> They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and
> special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and
> plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast
quantity
> of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We
may
> all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, so

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

[Joseph Ransdell]

Yes, there is already a movement afoot and maybe more than one, and all of 
the things you mentioned are being considered or coming under consideration. 
If you'll give me two or three days to get some information together for you 
on this in a systematic way, I'll try to convey to you and others on the 
list who may be interested in this sort of project a definite idea of what 
is being and might be done and what you might be able to do to help and also 
to get your own ideas on this.  It will take a collaborative effort to do it 
and there are indeed shortcuts that can be taken to get it moving, I 
believe.  But bear with me for just a couple of days so I can figure out how 
to organize the discussion effectively without interfering with the normal 
discussion function of the list.   I should say, perhaps, that the people at 
Harvard won't be of any special help at this particular time, but there are 
contacts with the Peirce Society that will be to the point.

Joe Ransdell

.
- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 3:12 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


So, who are the we who need how to get the money? I mean, are there already
people working on getting things digitalized? SO yes, 80.000 pages is a lot.
But I can hardly imagine it would cost more than 1 dollar per page or so to
get it digitalized? And should be able to do that job within 2 years or so?
With more people and some more equipment, some months?? Yes and maybe
special lightning. But still not milliard dollar I suppose?? I think it is
first of all needed to get exact figures about what such digitalization of
only the Peirce pages at Harvard would cost. The camera's "we" would
probably be able to just borrow or get from some good supplier of this
stuff. And time to do so decreasing it to just put more persons on the job.

I myself would be willing to think about ways to get this done. As it also
interests me a lot. And it is just important that this happens as soon as
possible.

Does anyone here have contact info for the Charles Peirce Society. And any
other foundation or society working on encouragement of study/communication
of Charles Sander Peirce. And maybe some good contact address at Harvard,
the people there responsible for the Peirce collection.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") insofar
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard Library,

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special and

persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast quantity
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We may
all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole lot of
them around these days who don't already have other things they want to
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so let me
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government for it?
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of ever
more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the interest of
spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors,
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- aren't
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this time.

But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so that
the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one might
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account stems
from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his
work a

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

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

For completeness:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ForGrantSeekers/EligibilityAndGuidelines/

Steven

Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds 
of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on 
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly 
endeavors.


With respect,

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:

Wilfred says::

"I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then 
where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give 
it a

try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen."

That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of 
the fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of 
Microsoft and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's 
philanthropical concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- 
and I will see to it that it is investigated.   Foundations usually 
have an initial filtering system that can be checked out for possible 
entry into an inner sanctum where you might be permitted to make your 
case for support.  It seems to be more the exception than the rule 
for them to leave it open enough for much in the way of purely 
scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through at this time, 
but there are ways of construing the interest which this particular 
project might have that might find some possibilities there. I'll see 
what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I find 
out soon.


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then 
where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give 
it a

try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") 
insofar
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard 
Library,


not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of 
thousands of

pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a 
lot of

the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some 
special and


persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast 
quantity
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  
We may

all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole 
lot of

them around these days who don't already have other things they want to
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so 
let me
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government 
for it?
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of 
ever

more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the 
interest of

spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors,
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- 
aren't
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this 
time.


But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so 
that

the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one 
might
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account 
stems

from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his
work after Peirce's death in 1914 -- the people in the philosophy 
department

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

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds 
of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on 
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly 
endeavors.


With respect,

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:

Wilfred says::

"I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen."

That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of the 
fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of Microsoft 
and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's philanthropical 
concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- and I will see to it 
that it is investigated.   Foundations usually have an initial filtering 
system that can be checked out for possible entry into an inner sanctum 
where you might be permitted to make your case for support.  It seems to be 
more the exception than the rule for them to leave it open enough for much 
in the way of purely scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through at 
this time, but there are ways of construing the interest which this 
particular project might have that might find some possibilities there. 
I'll see what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I 
find out soon.


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") insofar
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard Library,

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special and

persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast quantity
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We may
all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole lot of
them around these days who don't already have other things they want to
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so let me
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government for it?
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of ever
more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the interest of
spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors,
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- aren't
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this time.

But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so that
the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one might
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account stems
from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his
work after Peirce's death in 1914 -- the people in the philosophy department

at Harvard -- savaged it dreadfully over the course of the many decades when

they were its "stewards", leaving it in appalling disorder by the time it
was finally res

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

[Joseph Ransdell]

Wilfred says::

"I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen."

That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of the 
fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of Microsoft 
and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's philanthropical 
concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- and I will see to it 
that it is investigated.   Foundations usually have an initial filtering 
system that can be checked out for possible entry into an inner sanctum 
where you might be permitted to make your case for support.  It seems to be 
more the exception than the rule for them to leave it open enough for much 
in the way of purely scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through at 
this time, but there are ways of construing the interest which this 
particular project might have that might find some possibilities there. 
I'll see what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I 
find out soon.

Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") insofar
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard Library,

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special and

persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast quantity
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We may
all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole lot of
them around these days who don't already have other things they want to
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so let me
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government for it?
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of ever
more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the interest of
spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors,
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- aren't
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this time.

But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so that
the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one might
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account stems
from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his
work after Peirce's death in 1914 -- the people in the philosophy department

at Harvard -- savaged it dreadfully over the course of the many decades when

they were its "stewards", leaving it in appalling disorder by the time it
was finally rescued from them several decades after his death.
Consequently, a major part of the problem in making that material generally
available lies in the fact that it is still badly disordered even now, after

several more decades of attempts to sort it out with use of the photoc

[peirce-l] Re: Remarks on manuscripts

[Jaime Nubiola]

Dear colleagues,

Talking about the manuscripts held at the Houghton Library and about 
the microfilms of those manuscripts, it seems to me that it might be 
useful to address your attention to a relatively unknown Peirce's MS 
325 "Pragmatism made easy" (c. 1907).


In recent days we have installed in the web of our Group not only the 
English transcription (http://www.unav.es/gep/PragmatismMadeEasy.html 
) and the Spanish translation, but also the a copy of the  images of 
the eight pages: it takes some time to produce them, but I like the 
result because it provides a real sense of Peirce's handwriting. The 
images are available at http://www.unav.es/gep/1MS325.html


A much higher quality images of other manuscripts are available at 
http://www.unav.es/gep/Port/index.html


Best,

Jaime



--
==
Prof. Dr. Jaime Nubiola
Grupo Estudios Peirceanos
http://www.unav.es/gep/
Universidad de Navarra, E-31080 Pamplona, Spain
==

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Remarks on manuscripts

[David Lachance]

Dear listers,

I hope I am not repeating anything that's been said before, in which  
case I apologize, but here are just a few remarks on Peirce  
manuscripts to avoid confusion. (Joseph's reply just arrived, as I  
was writing this).


The two images here are (at least) second generation photocopies of  
the Robin microfilms of Peirce's papers (held in Harvard's Houghton  
library). These photocopies bear rubber-stamped numbers in the lower  
righthand side corner indicating MS (799) and page no. (2), not  
found of course on the originals. The MS no. also appears in pencil,  
top left, in the hand of P. Weiss, written directly on the original.


Photocopies such as those submitted here often bear annotations about  
ink color and such, since this information is lost after filming mss  
in b/w. In the present case (say, the 1st image), the title "Ten  
Classes of Signs", the arrows, the indications about brown and red  
ink, etc. are NOT Peirce's. From what I can make out I would say the  
numerals are his though.


When the Peirce edition Project publish a ms in the Writings,  
everything that is not Peirce's is of course taken out, and important  
information (such as the brown-red change in ink color by Peirce) is  
noted so as to give the clearest possible idea of the appearance of  
the original. Contrary to the Writings, neither the CP nor EP are  
critical editions in the strict sense (although the latter are based  
on the PEP's editorial work done for the Writings).


The easiest access to Peirce's papers is of course to work directly  
from the Robin microfilms. I might be wrong but I think the Bill  
Gates idea has been tried already (computer switch, name dropping and  
all). As for digitization, Harvard Libraries are rather reluctant as  
the rules for the protection of the manuscripts are quite strict; in  
any case they wouldn't let just anyone bring in a scanner and do it,  
obviously. Digital microfilm viewers/scanners are the easiest way to  
view the microfilms onscreen, but there are copyright issues with the  
scanning of the films, which remain Harvard's property.


David

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen]

So, who are the we who need how to get the money? I mean, are there already
people working on getting things digitalized? SO yes, 80.000 pages is a lot.
But I can hardly imagine it would cost more than 1 dollar per page or so to
get it digitalized? And should be able to do that job within 2 years or so?
With more people and some more equipment, some months?? Yes and maybe
special lightning. But still not milliard dollar I suppose?? I think it is
first of all needed to get exact figures about what such digitalization of
only the Peirce pages at Harvard would cost. The camera's "we" would
probably be able to just borrow or get from some good supplier of this
stuff. And time to do so decreasing it to just put more persons on the job.

I myself would be willing to think about ways to get this done. As it also
interests me a lot. And it is just important that this happens as soon as
possible.

Does anyone here have contact info for the Charles Peirce Society. And any
other foundation or society working on encouragement of study/communication
of Charles Sander Peirce. And maybe some good contact address at Harvard,
the people there responsible for the Peirce collection. 

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the 
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") insofar 
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard Library,

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of 
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of 
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the 
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of 
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't 
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special and

persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and 
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and 
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast quantity 
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We may 
all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some 
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she 
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole lot of 
them around these days who don't already have other things they want to 
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to 
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so let me 
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government for it? 
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of ever 
more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert 
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the interest of 
spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors, 
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- aren't 
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this time.

But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so that 
the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made 
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one might 
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account stems 
from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his 
work after Peirce's death in 1914 -- the people in the philosophy department

at Harvard -- savaged it dreadfully over the course of the many decades when

they were its "stewards", leaving it in appalling disorder by the time it 
was finally rescued from them several decades after his death. 
Consequently, a major part of the problem in making that material generally 
available lies in the fact that it is still badly disordered even now, after

several more decades of attempts to sort it out with use of the photocopies.

This is highly labor-intensive intellectual work.  There are plans afoot for

doing all of these and other things as well,  but it requires money even to 
get a start on doing all of this.

As I said, let us know if you know where to get it.

Joe Ransdell






- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


Ok..so...are these actual original notes of Peirce to be found at Harvard?
And can they be reviewed by scholars? If so I would be interested to go
there maybe some time and review 

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

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Sorry, on closer inspection that should read:

1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/5. Rhematic
4. Indexical
5/8. Legisign
6.
7.
8/3.
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign

540.17 highlighs in the same locations:

1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/5. Rhematic
4.
5/8. Legisign
6. Indexical
7.
8/3.
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign



Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:

Jean-Marc,

The reference is to the ink color - the brown colored text indicated 
in two ways - the rest is in red ink.  The note maker appears to be 
identifying that Peirce used two colors of ink.  The Brown ink calls out:


1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/8.
4. Indexical
5. Rhematic
6. Rhematic
7.
8/5. Legisign
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign

The numbering is unclear and appears to have been overwritten.  I 
assume the arrows do not indicate relations of any kind.


These color distinctions are reflected by the emboldened text in 
540.17 and the bracketing in 540.27.


With respect,
Steven


Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
 

[image here]

On the high-res picture it is clear that the annotations were added 
afterwards. Compare the line style of the figures and letters (1, 2, 
3, ... B) with Peirce's thicker more irregular feather pen's style. 
The handwriting is differently too compared with other manuscripts.


and why would Peirce write that some words have a brown color?

/JM

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen]

I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the 
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") insofar 
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard Library,

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of 
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of 
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the 
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of 
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't 
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special and

persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and 
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and 
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast quantity 
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We may 
all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some 
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she 
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole lot of 
them around these days who don't already have other things they want to 
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to 
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so let me 
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government for it? 
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of ever 
more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert 
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the interest of 
spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors, 
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- aren't 
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this time.

But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so that 
the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made 
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one might 
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account stems 
from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his 
work after Peirce's death in 1914 -- the people in the philosophy department

at Harvard -- savaged it dreadfully over the course of the many decades when

they were its "stewards", leaving it in appalling disorder by the time it 
was finally rescued from them several decades after his death. 
Consequently, a major part of the problem in making that material generally 
available lies in the fact that it is still badly disordered even now, after

several more decades of attempts to sort it out with use of the photocopies.

This is highly labor-intensive intellectual work.  There are plans afoot for

doing all of these and other things as well,  but it requires money even to 
get a start on doing all of this.

As I said, let us know if you know where to get it.

Joe Ransdell






- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


Ok..so...are these actual original notes of Peirce to be found at Harvard?
And can they be reviewed by scholars? If so I would be interested to go
there maybe some time and review it. Better to have seen it first hand.
Peirce is getting my attention more and more :-)

Is there actually some good overview of where to find what materials as
original as possible notes and so on from Charles Sander Peirce? And any
money available from institutions for thorough research?

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 20:02
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Image came through beautifully!

Look carefully at the MS799.2 triangle of boxes and you can that the numbers
are change from an earlier set of numbers. I originally thought that the
little earlier numeral "8" was an extra numeral "3"

CURRENT:

1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10
~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9
~~ 3 ~ 7
~~~ 4

EARLIER:

1 ~ 2 ~ 

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

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Jean-Marc,

The reference is to the ink color - the brown colored text indicated in 
two ways - the rest is in red ink.  The note maker appears to be 
identifying that Peirce used two colors of ink.  The Brown ink calls out:


1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/8.
4. Indexical
5. Rhematic
6. Rhematic
7.
8/5. Legisign
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign

The numbering is unclear and appears to have been overwritten.  I assume 
the arrows do not indicate relations of any kind.


These color distinctions are reflected by the emboldened text in 540.17 
and the bracketing in 540.27.


With respect,
Steven


Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
 

[image here]

On the high-res picture it is clear that the annotations were added 
afterwards. Compare the line style of the figures and letters (1, 2, 
3, ... B) with Peirce's thicker more irregular feather pen's style. 
The handwriting is differently too compared with other manuscripts.


and why would Peirce write that some words have a brown color?

/JM

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Joseph Ransdell]

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the 
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") insofar 
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard Library, 
not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of 
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of 
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the 
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of 
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't 
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special and 
persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and 
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and 
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast quantity 
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We may 
all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some 
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she 
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole lot of 
them around these days who don't already have other things they want to 
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to 
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so let me 
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government for it? 
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of ever 
more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert 
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the interest of 
spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors, 
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- aren't 
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this time.

But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so that 
the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made 
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one might 
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account stems 
from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his 
work after Peirce's death in 1914 -- the people in the philosophy department 
at Harvard -- savaged it dreadfully over the course of the many decades when 
they were its "stewards", leaving it in appalling disorder by the time it 
was finally rescued from them several decades after his death. 
Consequently, a major part of the problem in making that material generally 
available lies in the fact that it is still badly disordered even now, after 
several more decades of attempts to sort it out with use of the photocopies. 
This is highly labor-intensive intellectual work.  There are plans afoot for 
doing all of these and other things as well,  but it requires money even to 
get a start on doing all of this.

As I said, let us know if you know where to get it.

Joe Ransdell






- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


Ok..so...are these actual original notes of Peirce to be found at Harvard?
And can they be reviewed by scholars? If so I would be interested to go
there maybe some time and review it. Better to have seen it first hand.
Peirce is getting my attention more and more :-)

Is there actually some good overview of where to find what materials as
original as possible notes and so on from Charles Sander Peirce? And any
money available from institutions for thorough research?

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 20:02
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Image came through beautifully!

Look carefully at the MS799.2 triangle of boxes and you can that the numbers
are change from an earlier set of numbers. I originally thought that the
little earlier numeral "8" was an extra numeral "3"

CURRENT:

1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10
~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9
~~ 3 ~ 7
~~~ 4

EARLIER:

1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4
~ 5 ~ 6 ~ 7
~~ 8 ~ 9
~~~ 10

Best, Ben


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 16-6-2006


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 16-6-2006



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - R

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

[Benjamin Udell]

Looking at all three triangles, I get to feeling that it's unlikely that 
Pierce, having included no numbers in one triangle, would then in the other two 
triangles throw numbers in like afterthoughts and, in both triangles, change 
them, and begin and finish the numbers so that they looked a bit scattered and 
visually sloppy -- when he has written the sign class names with some care. 
Especially the MS540-17 triangle. 

I had noticed in the smaller graphic image of MS540-17 that the lettering 
looked careful, with serifs -- I thought it might even be medieval style. But 
in fact it was the bolding which Peirce did, which gave a medieval lookto some 
of the lettering when seen in the smaller, less-easy-to-read graphic image . I 
keep wanting to crack a joke here about Peirce being "not a profligate bolder" 
but showing here that "he was clearly not inexperienced at it ."

Anyway, great work, Joe! Thanks for these images of Peirce's own writing.

Best, Ben

- Original Message - 
From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:01 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


Image came through beautifully!

Look carefully at the MS799.2 triangle of boxes and you can that the numbers 
are change from an earlier set of numbers. I originally thought that the little 
earlier numeral "8" was an extra numeral "3"

CURRENT:

1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10 
~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9
~~ 3 ~ 7
~~~ 4

EARLIER:

1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 
~ 5 ~ 6 ~ 7
~~ 8 ~ 9
~~~ 10

Best, Ben


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Please Have Mercy on Pierce-L Digest Subscribers

[Joseph Ransdell]

I don't know the solution off-hand, Richard.  Sometimes we have to do 
graphics and when we have some collaborative scholarship going I am not 
going to disturb that by worrying about the digest, which gets little use. 
Another platform than lyris is one answer -- it is , to be sure, an 
abomination of a listserver (though not an abomination of my making) -- but 
that involves a move to another listserver provider, which is going to be 
happening "one of these days".  There may be other possibilities.

Joe Ransdell.



- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Hake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Cc: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Benjamin Udell" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Please Have Mercy on Pierce-L Digest Subscribers


I realize that most Pierce-L subscribers never see the  Pierce-L
Digest, so why should they care that it is probably one of the
greatest abominations on the internet?

Pierce-L is the only discussion list that I know of in which HTML
seems to be encouraged and attachments are not automatically deleted
from incoming posts.

I wonder if there are any subscribers, other than myself, who are
stupid enough to subscribe to the gibberish-loaded Digest [see
APPENDIX for a brief sample]?

If so, IMHO, they should be advised to:

(a) immediately cancel their subscription to the Digest, and

(b) monitor Pierce-L by means of the Backup Archive
.

On the Backup Archive the HTML gibberish and the interminable pages
of code are translated into English, even if the senseless
reply-button pushing repeats of previous already archived posts
persist.

Regards,

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




XX
APPENDIX [Severely Truncated Copy of the 179 kB Pierce-L digest of
June 13, 2006 1/3. (The gibberish continues for two more 179 kB
installments!!)

Status:  U
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:06:26 -0500
Subject: peirce-l digest: June 13, 2006
To: "peirce-l digest recipients" 
From: "Peirce Discussion Forum digest" 
Reply-To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
List-Unsubscribe: 
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

PEIRCE-L Digest for Tuesday, June 13, 2006.

1. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
2. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
3. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
4. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
5. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
6. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
7. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
8. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
9. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
10. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
11. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
12. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
13. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
14. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
15. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
16. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
17. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
18. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
19. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign

--

Subject: Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:05:22 -0400
X-Message-Number: 1

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--=_NextPart_000_0140_01C68E96.35D86310
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_NextPart_001_0141_01C68E96.35D86310"


--=_NextPart_001_0141_01C68E96.35D86310
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gary R., Robert, Bernard, Wilfred, Claudio, List,

I thought I'd try to the branching style chart of Peirce's ten-adic =
division of sign parameters. (These parameters are not mutually =
independent). I supposed that the same formal relations applied as with =
the main three trichotomies of parameters (qualisign/sinsign/legisign, =
icon/index/symbol, and rheme/dicisign/argument).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Best, Ben Udell.
   qualisign descriptive abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic =
suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct=20
   sinsign <=20
   designative <=20
   concretive <=20
   indexical <=20
   categorical <=20
   percussive <=20
   imperative <=20
   to produce action <=20
   dicent <=20
   assurance of experience=20
   /
   /  =20
   legisign--
   \  =20
   \ descriptive abstractive iconic < hypothetical sympathetic =
suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct=20
   designative <=20
   concretive <=20
   indexical <=20
   categorical <=20
   percussive <=20
   imperative <=20
   to produce action <=20
   dicent <=20
   assurance of experience=20

   /

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

[Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen]

Ok..so...are these actual original notes of Peirce to be found at Harvard?
And can they be reviewed by scholars? If so I would be interested to go
there maybe some time and review it. Better to have seen it first hand.
Peirce is getting my attention more and more :-)

Is there actually some good overview of where to find what materials as
original as possible notes and so on from Charles Sander Peirce? And any
money available from institutions for thorough research?

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 20:02
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Image came through beautifully!

Look carefully at the MS799.2 triangle of boxes and you can that the numbers
are change from an earlier set of numbers. I originally thought that the
little earlier numeral "8" was an extra numeral "3"

CURRENT:

1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10 
~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9
~~ 3 ~ 7
~~~ 4

EARLIER:

1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 
~ 5 ~ 6 ~ 7
~~ 8 ~ 9
~~~ 10

Best, Ben


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 16-6-2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 16-6-2006
 


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Jean-Marc Orliaguet]

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
 

[image here]

On the high-res picture it is clear that the annotations were added 
afterwards. Compare the line style of the figures and letters (1, 2, 3, 
... B) with Peirce's thicker more irregular feather pen's style. The 
handwriting is differently too compared with other manuscripts.


and why would Peirce write that some words have a brown color?

/JM

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Benjamin Udell]

Image came through beautifully!

Look carefully at the MS799.2 triangle of boxes and you can that the numbers 
are change from an earlier set of numbers. I originally thought that the little 
earlier numeral "8" was an extra numeral "3"

CURRENT:

1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10 
~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9
~~ 3 ~ 7
~~~ 4

EARLIER:

1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 
~ 5 ~ 6 ~ 7
~~ 8 ~ 9
~~~ 10

Best, Ben


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Please Have Mercy on Pierce-L Digest Subscribers

[Benjamin Udell]

Why don't you configure your email program to read all messages as plain text?

Best, Ben Udell

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Hake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Cc: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 12:13 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Please Have Mercy on Pierce-L Digest Subscribers


I realize that most Pierce-L subscribers never see the  Pierce-L Digest, so why 
should they care that it is probably one of the greatest abominations on the 
internet?

Pierce-L is the only discussion list that I know of in which HTML seems to be 
encouraged and attachments are not automatically deleted from incoming posts.

I wonder if there are any subscribers, other than myself, who are stupid enough 
to subscribe to the gibberish-loaded Digest [see APPENDIX for a brief sample]?

If so, IMHO, they should be advised to:

(a) immediately cancel their subscription to the Digest, and

(b) monitor Pierce-L by means of the Backup Archive 
.

On the Backup Archive the HTML gibberish and the interminable pages 
of code are translated into English, even if the senseless 
reply-button pushing repeats of previous already archived posts 
persist.

Regards,

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Please Have Mercy on Pierce-L Digest Subscribers

[Richard Hake]

I realize that most Pierce-L subscribers never see the  Pierce-L 
Digest, so why should they care that it is probably one of the 
greatest abominations on the internet?


Pierce-L is the only discussion list that I know of in which HTML 
seems to be encouraged and attachments are not automatically deleted 
from incoming posts.


I wonder if there are any subscribers, other than myself, who are 
stupid enough to subscribe to the gibberish-loaded Digest [see 
APPENDIX for a brief sample]?


If so, IMHO, they should be advised to:

(a) immediately cancel their subscription to the Digest, and

(b) monitor Pierce-L by means of the Backup Archive 
.


On the Backup Archive the HTML gibberish and the interminable pages 
of code are translated into English, even if the senseless 
reply-button pushing repeats of previous already archived posts 
persist.


Regards,

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




XX
APPENDIX [Severely Truncated Copy of the 179 kB Pierce-L digest of 
June 13, 2006 1/3. (The gibberish continues for two more 179 kB 
installments!!)


Status:  U
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:06:26 -0500
Subject: peirce-l digest: June 13, 2006
To: "peirce-l digest recipients" 
From: "Peirce Discussion Forum digest" 
Reply-To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
List-Unsubscribe: 
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

PEIRCE-L Digest for Tuesday, June 13, 2006.

1. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
2. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
3. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
4. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
5. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
6. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
7. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
8. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
9. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
10. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
11. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
12. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
13. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
14. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
15. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
16. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
17. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
18. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
19. Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign

--

Subject: Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:05:22 -0400
X-Message-Number: 1

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--=_NextPart_000_0140_01C68E96.35D86310
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_NextPart_001_0141_01C68E96.35D86310"


--=_NextPart_001_0141_01C68E96.35D86310
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gary R., Robert, Bernard, Wilfred, Claudio, List,

I thought I'd try to the branching style chart of Peirce's ten-adic =
division of sign parameters. (These parameters are not mutually =
independent). I supposed that the same formal relations applied as with =
the main three trichotomies of parameters (qualisign/sinsign/legisign, =
icon/index/symbol, and rheme/dicisign/argument).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Best, Ben Udell.
  qualisign descriptive abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic =
suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct=20
  sinsign <=20
  designative <=20
  concretive <=20
  indexical <=20
  categorical <=20
  percussive <=20
  imperative <=20
  to produce action <=20
  dicent <=20
  assurance of experience=20
  /
  /  =20
  legisign--
  \  =20
  \ descriptive abstractive iconic < hypothetical sympathetic =
suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct=20
  designative <=20
  concretive <=20
  indexical <=20
  categorical <=20
  percussive <=20
  imperative <=20
  to produce action <=20
  dicent <=20
  assurance of experience=20

  /
  copulant--
  \ abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific =
rhematic assurance of instinct=20
  concretive <=20
  indexical <=20
  categorical <=20
  percussive <=20
  imperative <=20
  to produce action <=20
  dicent <=20
  assurance of experience=20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

--=_NextPart_001_0141_01C68E96.35D86310
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Gary R., Robert, Bernard, Wilfred, Claudio, List,

 I thought I'd try to the branching style chart of =
Peirce's=20
ten-adic division of sign parameters. (These parameters are not mutually =

independent). I supposed 

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

[Benjamin Udell]

Argh, another graphic correction, this time the 1st triangle of 
boxes.
I promise to go have breakfast now. - Ben Udell
- Original Message - 
From: Benjamin Udell 
To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:47 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs 
(corrected)

Oops, graphic correction, sorry, the 2nd triangle of boxes, below.
- Ben
- Original Message - 
From: Benjamin Udell 
To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs 
(corrected)

I think I'm hungry too.
 
Meanwhile, here's more. It would be nice if somebody at Harvard could take 
a quick look and say whether the numbers in the first set were in red ink and 
whether generally any editorial marks were ever in red ink. - Ben. [CORRECTED 
DIAGRAM OF 2nd TRIANGLE OF BOXES]

- Original Message - From: Joseph Ransdell To: Peirce 
Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:23 AMSubject: 
[peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)
 
Damn, it looks like the images all shrank somehow.  Hang in there 
and I will send all three again in the right size.It will take me a while 
since I have to stop for breakfast first!
 
Joe 
 
- Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell To: Peirce 
Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:38 AMSubject: 
[peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)
 
You're welcome, Joe.

   
  Before you go, do you have a clearer view of the words written in the 
  third set of boxes?
   
  Here's what it looked to me like it was saying:
   
    Best, Ben
   
  - Original Message 
  From: Joseph Ransdell 
  To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
  Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:25 
  AM
  Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the 
  ten classes of signs (corrected)
  That's all for the moment from me.  There 
  arre other MS pages that might throu some light on things but it will take me 
  some time to browse through the MS material, which is from several different 
  file folders, to see what is truly worth adding as grist for the present 
  discussion.
   
  P.S.: And thanks to Ben for the 
  earlier help -- off-list as well as on -- with the graphics and for 
  the recent provision of the color version of the triangle of 
  boxes. 
  Joe 
Ransdell
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Benjamin Udell]

Oops, graphic correction, sorry, the 2nd triangle of boxes, below.
- Ben
- Original Message - 
From: Benjamin Udell 

To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs 
(corrected)

I think I'm hungry too.
 
Meanwhile, here's more. It would be nice if somebody at Harvard could take 
a quick look and say whether the numbers in the first set were in red ink and 
whether generally any editorial marks were ever in red ink. - Ben. [CORRECTED 
DIAGRAM OF 2nd TRIANGLE OF BOXES]

- Original Message - From: Joseph Ransdell To: Peirce 
Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:23 AMSubject: 
[peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)
 
Damn, it looks like the images all shrank somehow.  Hang in there 
and I will send all three again in the right size.It will take me a while 
since I have to stop for breakfast first!
 
Joe 
 
- Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell To: Peirce 
Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:38 AMSubject: 
[peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)
 
You're welcome, Joe.

   
  Before you go, do you have a clearer view of the words written in the 
  third set of boxes?
   
  Here's what it looked to me like it was saying:
   
    Best, Ben
   
  - Original Message 
  From: Joseph Ransdell 
  To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
  Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:25 
  AM
  Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the 
  ten classes of signs (corrected)
  That's all for the moment from me.  There 
  arre other MS pages that might throu some light on things but it will take me 
  some time to browse through the MS material, which is from several different 
  file folders, to see what is truly worth adding as grist for the present 
  discussion.
   
  P.S.: And thanks to Ben for the 
  earlier help -- off-list as well as on -- with the graphics and for 
  the recent provision of the color version of the triangle of 
  boxes. 
  Joe 
Ransdell
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Benjamin Udell]

I think I'm hungry too.
 
Meanwhile, here's more. It would be nice if somebody at Harvard could take 
a quick look and say whether the numbers in the first set were in red ink and 
whether generally any editorial marks were ever in red ink. - Ben.

- Original Message - From: Joseph Ransdell To: Peirce 
Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:23 AMSubject: 
[peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)
 
Damn, it looks like the images all shrank somehow.  Hang in there 
and I will send all three again in the right size.It will take me a while 
since I have to stop for breakfast first!
 
Joe 
 
- Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell To: Peirce 
Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:38 AMSubject: 
[peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)
 
You're welcome, Joe.

   
  Before you go, do you have a clearer view of the words written in the 
  third set of boxes?
   
  Here's what it looked to me like it was saying:
   
    Best, Ben
   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joseph Ransdell 
  
  To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
  Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:25 AM
  Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs 
  (corrected)
  
  That's all for the moment from me.  There 
  arre other MS pages that might throu some light on things but it will take me 
  some time to browse through the MS material, which is from several different 
  file folders, to see what is truly worth adding as grist for the present 
  discussion.  
   
  P.S.: And thanks to Ben for the 
  earlier help -- off-list as well as on -- with the graphics and for 
  the recent provision of the color version of the triangle of 
  boxes.   
   
  Joe 
Ransdell
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Joseph Ransdell]

Damn, it looks like the images all shrank 
somehow.  Hang in there and I will send 
all three again in the right size.
It will take me a while since I have to stop for breakfast first!
 
Joe
 
 
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Benjamin Udell 
  
  To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
  Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:38 
  AM
  Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the 
  ten classes of signs (corrected)
  
  You're welcome, Joe.
   
  Before you go, do you have a clearer view of the words written in the 
  third set of boxes?
   
  Here's what it looked to me like it was saying:
   
    Best, Ben
   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joseph Ransdell 
  
  To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
  Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:25 AM
  Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs 
  (corrected)
  
  That's all for the moment from me.  There 
  arre other MS pages that might throu some light on things but it will take me 
  some time to browse through the MS material, which is from several different 
  file folders, to see what is truly worth adding as grist for the present 
  discussion.  
   
  P.S.: And thanks to Ben for the 
  earlier help -- off-list as well as on -- with the graphics and for 
  the recent provision of the color version of the triangle of 
  boxes.   
   
  Joe Ransdell---Message from 
  peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]---Message from peirce-l 
  forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 
  6/16/2006
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen]

So, actually, the photocopies we have now are
actually photocopies of photocopies? And, are the originals at Harvard or so?

I am just wondering whether anyone situated near
enough to the source for the most original papers of Peirce still available
somewhere ( I guess the originals will be somewhere!!) is able to make
photocopies, or, maybe even better, (also) some digital photos in high
resolution from the original papers!! That is, I mean the original diagrams we
or better the more informed Peirce specialists here are discussing at the
moment.

 

I also would like to thank Benjamin Udell here for
his information also the explanations to me in special. This is highly
appreciated!

 

Kind regards,

 

Wilfred

 

 









Van: Joseph Ransdell
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006
15:21
Aan: Peirce
 Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re:
representing the ten classes of signs (corrected)





 

 Or if they are due to
editors, are any of them due to Fisch, Ketner, et al when they made their
photocopy, which was then subsequently photocopied itself!  What  I
have is a photocopy of their photocopy -- or perhaps a photocopy of a photocopy
of their photocopy!





 





Aaarrrgh!  (Sound of wailing and
gnashing of teeth!)





 





 





Joe Ransdell  





 





  







- Original Message - 





From: Joseph Ransdell 





To: Peirce
Discussion Forum 





Sent: Saturday, June 17,
2006 7:54 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 Messag

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

[Benjamin Udell]

You're welcome, Joe.
 
Before you go, do you have a clearer view of the words written in the third 
set of boxes?
 
Here's what it looked to me like it was saying:
 
  Best, Ben
 
- Original Message - 
From: Joseph Ransdell 

To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs 
(corrected)

That's all for the moment from me.  There 
arre other MS pages that might throu some light on things but it will take me 
some time to browse through the MS material, which is from several different 
file folders, to see what is truly worth adding as grist for the present 
discussion.  
 
P.S.: And thanks to Ben for the 
earlier help -- off-list as well as on -- with the graphics and for 
the recent provision of the color version of the triangle of 
boxes.   
 
Joe Ransdell
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Joseph Ransdell]

That's all for the moment from me.  There 
arre other MS pages that might throu some light on things but it will take me 
some time to browse through the MS material, which is from several different 
file folders, to see what is truly worth adding as grist for the present 
discussion.  
 
P.S.: And thanks to Ben for the 
earlier help -- off-list as well as on -- with the graphics and for 
the recent provision of the color version of the triangle of 
boxes.   
 
Joe Ransdell
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

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

[Vin�cius]

Joe, Robert, list     My question to De Tienne was motivated by the fact that he and Houser did not reproduced the Roman (or any other type) numbers when they published those same pages of the Syllabus in the Essential Peice Volume 2 (see page 296). I took that as a deliberate intention to state the triangle as originally draw by Peirce.  Now I am more confused as ever and hope that the issue could be cleared up in some way.  Best,  Vinicius     Joseph Ransdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  -Vinicius, Robert, and list:     Hold  the presses! 
 I have found two other instances of the triangle of boxes in the MS material which I will forward in separate messages.  Do they solve the problem?  I can't say yet but will just pass the images along in a few minutes.     Bear in mind that the basic problem is that it is difficult to be certain of what is actually on the original MS page and what is on a photocopy of that page that was made by Fisch, Ketner, et al in 1974 or thereabouts when a team from Texas Tech (including Fisch, who was there as a visiting university professor at that time) went to Harvard and did a photocopy of the Harvard holdings that could replace the Robin microfilm copy.  Are the arrows and other notations (such as the numerals) which seem to be due to editors all due to them or are some of them actually notations on the original MS by Peirce himself?  Or
 if they are due to editors, are any of them due to Fisch, Ketner, et al when they made their photocopy, which was then subsequently photocopied itself!  What  I have is a photocopy of their photocopy -- or perhaps a photocopy of a photocopy of their photocopy!     Aaarrrgh!  (Sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth!)        Joe Ransdell         - Original Message -   From: Joseph Ransdell   To: Peirce Discussion Forum   Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:54 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  no

[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 

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

[Joseph Ransdell]

-Vinicius, Robert, and list:
 
Hold  the presses!  I have found two 
other instances of the triangle of boxes in the MS material which I will forward 
in separate messages.  Do they solve the problem?  I can't say yet but 
will just pass the images along in a few minutes.
 
Bear in mind that the basic problem is that it is 
difficult to be certain of what is actually on the original MS page and what is 
on a photocopy of that page that was made by Fisch, Ketner, et al in 1974 or 
thereabouts when a team from Texas Tech (including Fisch, who was there as 
a visiting university professor at that time) went to Harvard and did a 
photocopy of the Harvard holdings that could replace the Robin microfilm 
copy.  Are the arrows and other notations (such as the 
numerals) which seem to be due to editors all due to them or are some 
of them actually notations on the original MS by Peirce 
himself?  Or if they are due to editors, are any of them due to Fisch, 
Ketner, et al when they made their photocopy, which was then subsequently 
photocopied itself!  What  I have is a photocopy of their 
photocopy -- or perhaps a photocopy of a photocopy of their 
photocopy!
 
Aaarrrgh!  (Sound of wailing and gnashing of 
teeth!)
 
 
Joe Ransdell  
 
  

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joseph Ransdell 
  
  To: Peirce Discussion Forum 
  Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:54 
  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: 

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

[Joseph Ransdell]

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 Martyhttp://robert.marty.perso.cegetel.net/ 
  
-Message d'origine-De : VinXcius Romanini 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Envoyé : samedi 17 juin 2006 
01:51À : Peirce Discussion ForumObjet : 
[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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
 

[peirce-l] RE: image of original boxed triangle at CP 2.264

[robert marty]

I 
remove my precedent message ! It's a pity...
 
Robert Martyhttp://robert.marty.perso.cegetel.net/ 

  -Message d'origine-De : Joseph Ransdell 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Envoyé : samedi 17 juin 2006 
  13:56À : Peirce Discussion ForumObjet : 
  [peirce-l] image of original boxed triangle at CP 
  2.264
   
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com