[Inquiry] Attribute, Impute, Represent -- Commentary

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

AIR.  Commentary Note 1

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Joe Ransdell includes this citation in his
web page entitled "Symbols Involve Icons".

| W 1,355   MS 115 Logic Chapter 1, Winter-Spring 1866
|
| In the third case [that of the symbol], where the relation of the
| repraesentamen to its object is ideal, the ground of this relation
| is an attribute of the correlate attributed to the relate, and then
| the relate or repraesentamen represents the object or correlate on
| account of the quality attributed to it.  This gives a general sign,
| a word or conception, for the repraesentamen will necessarily apply
| to everything which contains its attributed quality.
|
| http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/rsources/quotes/iconrole.htm

I'd already cited a more complete excerpt
a couple of months ago on the AIR thread:

Cf: AIR 1.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002383.html
Cf: AIR 2.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002384.html
In: AIR.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/thread.html#2383

I believe that a lot of the meaning of this passage,
along with many others that follow the same pattern,
resides in the contrast that Peirce makes among the
three kinds of signs, in particular, the fact that
the adjectives he uses to describe the three cases
are chosen as differentia of the species and thus
take their meanings from their mutual contrasts.

So let as look at this excerpt in a larger context.
Peirce's text is quoted with left marginal bars.
My own comments are interspersed unindented.

| As relations separate into two kinds on account of the
| double reference they contain, so representations from
| containing a triple reference separate into three kinds.
|
| For the relation of a repraesentamen to its object (correlate) may
| be a real relation and, then, either an agreement or a difference,
| or it may be an ideal relation or one from which the reference to
| a correspondent (subject of representation) cannot be prescinded
| by position.

The sign or representamen is here the relate, the thing that is
referred to by the leading noun of the phrase "sign of __ to __".
The object is the correlate, the thing that fills the first blank
of the phrase, and the correspondent or subject of representation
is the thing that fills the second blank, something that will come
to be described as the interpreter or, better yet, the interpretant.

The distinction between real relation and ideal relation,
with the meaning that Peirce gives to it, should be noted.
Here it modulates the relationship between sign and object,
according to whether the reference to an interpretant can
be prescinded from it or not, respectively.
     
| In the first case, that is where the repraesentamen has a real agreement
| with its object, the representation consists in the 'likeness';  a simple
| quality of the object is shown but the object itself is not said to exist.
|
| In the second case, there is a real difference of the repraesentamen from its
| object, that is to say not a mere difference in quality but also a bringing
| of them together in nature;  in this case the representative character of
| the one will consist in constant accompaniment by the other, so that it
| 'indicates' the existence of the latter without noting any characters
| of it.  Such a representation may be termed an 'index'.
|
| In the third case, where the relation of the repraesentamen to
| its object is ideal, the ground of this relation is an attribute
| of the correlate 'attributed' to the relate, and then the relate
| or repraesentamen represents the object or correlate on account
| of the quality attributed to it.  This gives a 'general sign',
| a word or conception, for the repraesentamen will necessarily
| apply to everything which contains its attributed quality.

In the case of a symbol or general sign,
as Peirce describes it in this passage,
we have the following situation:

   1.  The 2-adic relation between the sign and its object is ideal.

   2.  The ground of this ideal 2-adic relation between
       the sign and its object is an attribute of the
       object that is attributed to the sign.

   3.  The sign represents the object on account of
       the quality that is attributed to the sign.

   4.  The sign necessarily applies to, denotes, or
       is a sign of every object which contains its
       attributed quality.

It is critically important, that is, indispensable
for the sake of logic, to understand the difference
between an attribute of something and an attribute
attributed to something.

Jon Awbrey

Above excerpts taken from:

| C.S. Peirce, 'Chronological Edition', CE 1, 355
|
| C.S. Peirce, "Logic Chapter 1", MS 115 (1866), pp. 351-356 in:
|'Writings of Charles S. Peirce:  A Chronological Edition, Vol. 1, 1857-1866',
| Peirce Edition Project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o