Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jerry- thanks; one of the few times I've laughed out loud at an email. You are 
quite right.

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jerry Rhee 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce List 
  Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 7:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to 
highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold 
classification


  Edwina, list:


  You said:
  until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't 
this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?



  Yes.



  So, where is this object? 
  On this list, it's what Peirce said.  
  But you said different than what Jon said about what Peirce said.  
  But what is it Peirce said about?  
  That's really the object.  


  Best,
  Jerry R




  On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

Jon, list - I know and agree that Peirce uses the term 'determines' and 
this is a 19th century usage but Jeff wasn't quoting Peirce in the diagrams.  I 
think that when one is explaining semiosis, as in Jeff's diagrams, then, one 
has to be careful of the modern meaning of the term. Therefore, in the diagram, 
to say that O determines S; O determines I ...etc...needs more explanation and 
consideration of its modern meaning, which is less about constraint and more 
about linear causality.  

Yes, I understand the dyadic Relations, [examined at length in the Welby 
letters], i.e., the sign/representamn relation to the object; and its relation 
to the Interpretant. My reference to the the semiosic triad is not a reference 
to the relation between the Interpretant and Object, but to the depth-relation, 
so to speak, of the Representamen-in-itself.

Agreed - the sign/representamen will function in a relation "to the object 
on the one hand and to an interpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring 
the interpretant into a relation to the object, corresponding to its own 
relation to the object" 8.332. 

But this, in practical terms, has to be examined. And here is a question - 
which I cannot figure out. For example, a rhematic indexical legisign. here, we 
have the relation between the representamen-object in a mode of Secondness. 
Then, the Representamen itself is in a mode of Thirdness. And..the Relation 
between the Representamen and the Interpretant is in a mode of Firstness.

So- is it the case that the 'Interpretant is in a relation to the 
Object...in a mode of Secondness? The Relation between the R-I is, again, in a 
mode of Firstness. So, again, is the I-O relation in a mode of Secondness? Of, 
is it rather the case that this semiosis activity must continue on, for some 
time until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't 
this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Peirce List 
  Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 5:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to 
highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold 
classification


  Edwina, List: 


ET:  I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's 
because it suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality.


  The term is not Jeff's, it is Peirce's; it even appears in the title of 
the specific work that he referenced.  It does not entail causality, efficient 
or otherwise; it has more to do with constraint.  As Peirce stated a few years 
later, in a letter to Lady Welby ...


CSP:  It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a 
Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but 
a Necessitant. (EP 2.481; 1906)


  As Peirce went on to explain, this is the reason why three trichotomies 
produce only ten classes, rather than 27.  A qualisign can only determine an 
icon, which can only determine a rheme; an argument can only be determined by a 
symbol, which can only be determined by a legisign.  Likewise for 28 classes 
from six trichotomies, rather than 729; and 66 classes from ten trichotomies, 
rather than 59,049.


ET:  I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic 
relations'.  Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into 
dyads..then...??


  Not dyads, but dyadic relations; i.e., relations between two 
correlates--specifically, S-O and S-I.  Again, I-O is not treated as a separate 
dyadic relation, because the sign determines the intepretant to have the same 
relation to the object that the sign itself does; or at least, that is my 
understanding of Peirce.


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Fri, 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

[Jerry Rhee]

Edwina, list:

You said:
*until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't
this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?*

Yes.

So, where is this object?
On this list, it's what Peirce said.
But you said different than what Jon said about what Peirce said.
But what is it Peirce said about?
That's really the object.

Best,
Jerry R


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Jon, list - I know and agree that Peirce uses the term 'determines' and
> this is a 19th century usage but Jeff wasn't quoting Peirce in the
> diagrams.  I think that when one is explaining semiosis, as in Jeff's
> diagrams, then, one has to be careful of the modern meaning of the term.
> Therefore, in the diagram, to say that O determines S; O determines I
> ...etc...needs more explanation and consideration of its modern meaning,
> which is less about constraint and more about linear causality.
>
> Yes, I understand the dyadic Relations, [examined at length in the Welby
> letters], i.e., the sign/representamn relation to the object; and its
> relation to the Interpretant. My reference to the the semiosic triad is not
> a reference to the relation between the Interpretant and Object, but to the
> depth-relation, so to speak, of the Representamen-in-itself.
>
> Agreed - the sign/representamen will function in a relation "to the object
> on the one hand and to an interpretant on the other, in such a way as to
> bring the interpretant into a relation to the object, corresponding to its
> own relation to the object" 8.332.
>
> But this, in practical terms, has to be examined. *And here is a question
> - which I cannot figure *out. For example, a rhematic indexical legisign.
> here, we have the relation between the representamen-object in a mode of
> Secondness. Then, the Representamen itself is in a mode of Thirdness.
> And..the Relation between the Representamen and the Interpretant is in a
> mode of Firstness.
>
> So- is it the case that the 'Interpretant is in a relation to the
> Object...in a mode of Secondness? The Relation between the R-I is, again,
> in a mode of Firstness. So, again, is the I-O relation in a mode of
> Secondness? Of, is it rather the case that this semiosis activity must
> continue on, for some time *until that I-O relation does indeed correlate
> with the R-O Relation? Isn't this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving
> at the truth?*
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt 
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky 
> *Cc:* Peirce List 
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 5:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to
> highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the
> 10-fold classification
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET:  I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because
> it suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality.
>
>
> The term is not Jeff's, it is Peirce's; it even appears in the title of
> the specific work that he referenced.  It does not entail *causality*,
> efficient or otherwise; it has more to do with *constraint*.  As Peirce
> stated a few years later, in a letter to Lady Welby ...
>
> CSP:  It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible;
> it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a
> Necessitant. (EP 2.481; 1906)
>
>
> As Peirce went on to explain, this is the reason why three trichotomies
> produce only ten classes, rather than 27.  A qualisign can only determine
> an icon, which can only determine a rheme; an argument can only be
> determined by a symbol, which can only be determined by a legisign.
> Likewise for 28 classes from six trichotomies, rather than 729; and 66
> classes from ten trichotomies, rather than 59,049.
>
> ET:  I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'.
>  Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...??
>
>
> Not dyads, but *dyadic relations*; i.e., relations between two
> correlates--specifically, S-O and S-I.  Again, I-O is not treated as a
> separate dyadic relation, because the sign determines the intepretant to
> have the same relation to the object that the sign itself does; or at
> least, that is my understanding of Peirce.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey- thanks for the diagrams - very interesting.  I have two comments
>> at the moment.
>>
>> 1) I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
>> suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality. I don't think
>> that the semiosic triad functions in a linear deterministic manner; the
>> Relations are 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jon, list - I know and agree that Peirce uses the term 'determines' and this is 
a 19th century usage but Jeff wasn't quoting Peirce in the diagrams.  I think 
that when one is explaining semiosis, as in Jeff's diagrams, then, one has to 
be careful of the modern meaning of the term. Therefore, in the diagram, to say 
that O determines S; O determines I ...etc...needs more explanation and 
consideration of its modern meaning, which is less about constraint and more 
about linear causality.  

Yes, I understand the dyadic Relations, [examined at length in the Welby 
letters], i.e., the sign/representamn relation to the object; and its relation 
to the Interpretant. My reference to the the semiosic triad is not a reference 
to the relation between the Interpretant and Object, but to the depth-relation, 
so to speak, of the Representamen-in-itself.

Agreed - the sign/representamen will function in a relation "to the object on 
the one hand and to an interpretant on the other, in such a way as to bring the 
interpretant into a relation to the object, corresponding to its own relation 
to the object" 8.332. 

But this, in practical terms, has to be examined. And here is a question - 
which I cannot figure out. For example, a rhematic indexical legisign. here, we 
have the relation between the representamen-object in a mode of Secondness. 
Then, the Representamen itself is in a mode of Thirdness. And..the Relation 
between the Representamen and the Interpretant is in a mode of Firstness.

So- is it the case that the 'Interpretant is in a relation to the Object...in a 
mode of Secondness? The Relation between the R-I is, again, in a mode of 
Firstness. So, again, is the I-O relation in a mode of Secondness? Of, is it 
rather the case that this semiosis activity must continue on, for some time 
until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't this 
what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Peirce List 
  Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 5:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to 
highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold 
classification


  Edwina, List:


ET:  I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it 
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality.


  The term is not Jeff's, it is Peirce's; it even appears in the title of the 
specific work that he referenced.  It does not entail causality, efficient or 
otherwise; it has more to do with constraint.  As Peirce stated a few years 
later, in a letter to Lady Welby ...


CSP:  It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; 
it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a 
Necessitant. (EP 2.481; 1906)


  As Peirce went on to explain, this is the reason why three trichotomies 
produce only ten classes, rather than 27.  A qualisign can only determine an 
icon, which can only determine a rheme; an argument can only be determined by a 
symbol, which can only be determined by a legisign.  Likewise for 28 classes 
from six trichotomies, rather than 729; and 66 classes from ten trichotomies, 
rather than 59,049.


ET:  I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'. 
 Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...??


  Not dyads, but dyadic relations; i.e., relations between two 
correlates--specifically, S-O and S-I.  Again, I-O is not treated as a separate 
dyadic relation, because the sign determines the intepretant to have the same 
relation to the object that the sign itself does; or at least, that is my 
understanding of Peirce.


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

Jeffrey- thanks for the diagrams - very interesting.  I have two comments 
at the moment.

1) I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it 
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality. I don't think that 
the semiosic triad functions in a linear deterministic manner; the Relations 
are far more interactional and dynamic.

2) I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'.  
Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...?? Also, you 
have the lines of interaction from the MIDDLE of the Relation [eg between the 
O-S].  How can an interaction originate from the middle of another interaction? 
My understanding of interactions/Relations is that they take place at nodal 
sites - and only at nodal sites, where different lines of interactions 
meet/merge/transform.

Edwina

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET:  I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality.


The term is not Jeff's, it is Peirce's; it even appears in the title of the
specific work that he referenced.  It does not entail *causality*,
efficient or otherwise; it has more to do with *constraint*.  As Peirce
stated a few years later, in a letter to Lady Welby ...

CSP:  It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible;
it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a
Necessitant. (EP 2.481; 1906)


As Peirce went on to explain, this is the reason why three trichotomies
produce only ten classes, rather than 27.  A qualisign can only determine
an icon, which can only determine a rheme; an argument can only be
determined by a symbol, which can only be determined by a legisign.
Likewise for 28 classes from six trichotomies, rather than 729; and 66
classes from ten trichotomies, rather than 59,049.

ET:  I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'.
 Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...??


Not dyads, but *dyadic relations*; i.e., relations between two
correlates--specifically, S-O and S-I.  Again, I-O is not treated as a
separate dyadic relation, because the sign determines the intepretant to
have the same relation to the object that the sign itself does; or at
least, that is my understanding of Peirce.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Jeffrey- thanks for the diagrams - very interesting.  I have two comments
> at the moment.
>
> 1) I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
> suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality. I don't think
> that the semiosic triad functions in a linear deterministic manner; the
> Relations are far more interactional and dynamic.
>
> 2) I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'.
>  Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...??
> Also, you have the lines of interaction from the MIDDLE of the Relation [eg
> between the O-S].  How can an interaction originate from the middle of
> another interaction? My understanding of interactions/Relations is that
> they take place at nodal sites - and only at nodal sites, where different
> lines of interactions meet/merge/transform.
>
> Edwina

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jeff, Gary F., List:

GF:  That would seem to mean that the Interpretant determines whether the
sign is icon, index or symbol. I don’t see how that could work ...


I was just thinking about how to make this same point.  My understanding of
Peirce is that the sign determines the interpretant to have the same
relation to the object that the sign itself has, which is presumably why
the interpretant-object relation is never treated as a separate
trichotomy.  Therefore, it seems to me that the sign-object relation must
precede the interpretant in the order of determination.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 4:06 PM,  wrote:

> Jeff, I'm sure I must be missing something here, so I'd better take it one
> question at a time ...
>
> When you say (iii) that “I determines (O-S)”, does that mean that the
> Interpretant determines the Object-Sign relation? That would seem to mean
> that the Interpretant determines whether the sign is icon, index or symbol.
> I don’t see how that could work, but I don’t see how else to read it.
>
> Concerning the two sets of three trichotomies each outlined in the middle
> of EP2:290, those are supposed to apply to triadic relations generally, but
> how they would apply to Signs (i.e. to one type of *correlate* of one
> type of triadic relation) is not clear, because at this point Peirce has
> not yet said anything about the order of determination, nor has he yet
> defined a Representamen or a Sign (he does that a couple of paragraphs
> later, commenting that “Signs are the only representamens that have been
> much studied.”) What we have in the rest of NDTR is ten types OF SIGNS defined
> according to three trichotomies OF SIGNS. I don’t see how either of the two
> sets of ten classes OF TRIADIC RELATIONS mentioned on p.290 can be expected
> to map onto the tenfold classification of SIGNS.
>
> But I’ll keep looking …
>
> Gary f.
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

[gnox]

Jeff, I'm sure I must be missing something here, so I'd better take it one
question at a time ...

 

When you say (iii) that "I determines (O-S)", does that mean that the
Interpretant determines the Object-Sign relation? That would seem to mean
that the Interpretant determines whether the sign is icon, index or symbol.
I don't see how that could work, but I don't see how else to read it.

 

Concerning the two sets of three trichotomies each outlined in the middle of
EP2:290, those are supposed to apply to triadic relations generally, but how
they would apply to Signs (i.e. to one type of correlate of one type of
triadic relation) is not clear, because at this point Peirce has not yet
said anything about the order of determination, nor has he yet defined a
Representamen or a Sign (he does that a couple of paragraphs later,
commenting that "Signs are the only representamens that have been much
studied.") What we have in the rest of NDTR is ten types OF SIGNS defined
according to three trichotomies OF SIGNS. I don't see how either of the two
sets of ten classes OF TRIADIC RELATIONS mentioned on p.290 can be expected
to map onto the tenfold classification of SIGNS.

 

But I'll keep looking .

 

Gary f. 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] 
Sent: 16-Sep-16 17:33



Hi Gary F., Terry, List,

 

Here are three diagrams I am using to explore the relations of determination
between signs, objects and interpretants in the 10-fold classification
(circa 1903 in the "Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, So far
as They are Determined").

 

The small roman numerals in the first colored diagram are an attempt to
follow the order of the relations of determination, and to work out some
features of the key relations (e.g., of reference and representation) that
are determined according to these ordered patterns (or, more mathematical
terms, paths).

 

The main idea I am trying to develop in the two colored diagrams is that
there are really two different sorts of triadic relations that result from
the relations of determination between objects, signs and interpretants. He
makes this clear in the middle of the page 290 in the EP, vol. 2. As far as
I can tell, little has been said about this this double feature in Peirce's
account. I'm highlighting this double feature with the branching arrow
giving rise to two sorts of triadic relations on the bottom half of the
page.

 

Peirce says:  

 

"Triadic relations are in three ways divisible by trichotomy, according as
the First, Second, or Third Correlate, respectively, is a mere possibility,
and actual existent, or a law. 

...

There will be besides a second similar division of triadic relations into
ten classes, according as the dyadic relations which they constitute between
either the First and Second Correlates, or the First and Third, or the
Second and Third are of the nature of possibilities, facts, or laws; and
these ten classes will be subdivided in different ways."

 

 

If you would, let me know if these diagrams help at all to clarify what he
might be saying here in NDTR--and/or where the diagrams might be leading me
astray.

 

--Jeff

 

 

Jeffrey Downard

Associate Professor

Department of Philosophy

Northern Arizona University


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jeffrey- thanks for the diagrams - very interesting.  I have two comments at 
the moment.


1) I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it 
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality. I don't think 
that the semiosic triad functions in a linear deterministic manner; the 
Relations are far more interactional and dynamic.


2) I'm wondering about the diagram of the 'triad of dyadic relations'.  
Since the semiosic triad can't be broken down into dyads..then...?? Also, 
you have the lines of interaction from the MIDDLE of the Relation [eg 
between the O-S].  How can an interaction originate from the middle of 
another interaction? My understanding of interactions/Relations is that they 
take place at nodal sites - and only at nodal sites, where different lines 
of interactions meet/merge/transform.


Edwina


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" 

To: "Terry Moore" 
Cc: "'Peirce List'" 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 5:33 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight 
the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold 
classification



Hi Gary F., Terry, List,

Here are three diagrams I am using to explore the relations of determination 
between signs, objects and interpretants in the 10-fold classification 
(circa 1903 in the "Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, So far 
as They are Determined").


The small roman numerals in the first colored diagram are an attempt to 
follow the order of the relations of determination, and to work out some 
features of the key relations (e.g., of reference and representation) that 
are determined according to these ordered patterns (or, more mathematical 
terms, paths).


The main idea I am trying to develop in the two colored diagrams is that 
there are really two different sorts of triadic relations that result from 
the relations of determination between objects, signs and interpretants. He 
makes this clear in the middle of the page 290 in the EP, vol. 2. As far as 
I can tell, little has been said about this this double feature in Peirce's 
account. I'm highlighting this double feature with the branching arrow 
giving rise to two sorts of triadic relations on the bottom half of the 
page.


Peirce says:

"Triadic relations are in three ways divisible by trichotomy, according as 
the First, Second, or Third Correlate, respectively, is a mere possibility, 
and actual existent, or a law.

...
There will be besides a second similar division of triadic relations into 
ten classes, according as the dyadic relations which they constitute between 
either the First and Second Correlates, or the First and Third, or the 
Second and Third are of the nature of possibilities, facts, or laws; and 
these ten classes will be subdivided in different ways."



If you would, let me know if these diagrams help at all to clarify what he 
might be saying here in NDTR--and/or where the diagrams might be leading me 
astray.


--Jeff


Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354

From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:23 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] APERI project

Hola Jeff,

In the first of the two PDF diagrams you sent, I don't get what the roman
numerals inside the triangle signify. I gather that "i" is object
determining sign, and "ii" is sign determining interpretant, but the other
roman numerals there are a mystery to me.

The other diagram is less clear to me, but I'll keep working on it ...

I also found the Nadin paper that you got the R-O-I triangle diagram from,
will put it on my reading list (if you think it's worthwhile). He seems to
use the old sign/representamen distinction that's been read into Peirce
(inaccurately, as I showed awhile back) but that may not be a problem in his
case.

I also read all the pages on the Abductive Pathways site, bookmarked it and
look forward to updates! Do you plan to use it as a blog?

gary



-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
Sent: 13-Sep-16 12:06
To: g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] APERI project

Hi Gary,

Here are two diagrams that I've been working on. The first diagram is an
attempt to represent the relations of determination and the 10-fold
classification of signs that is found in "Nomenclature and Division of
Triadic Relations." The diagram is only meant to convey the relations on the
strata of possibles--that is, between possible objects, signs and
interpretants. Then, the more complicated diagram is for the more extensive
relations of determination in the 66-fold classification. I'm using the same
diagrams for the strata of existences and necessitants. The three levels can
be nested together.

These