Hi Bruno Marchal  

I think you tend to combine 1p (the nature of the quale or input)   
with 2p (how that feels, which I think should be very personal ). 

These are often confused, some people saying that quale 
is 1p,  others that quale is the actual feeling (2p). 

I think the categories are quite different, however:

1p (brain) is the physical input signal (brain)

2p (brainmind) is the signal while being processed in the (brainmind) 
    as it attempt to recognize the signal from memory
     (past experience)


3p (mind) is mental (rational) identification of the perception and 
    its implications 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/29/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-12-29, 07:20:07 
Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland 




On 29 Dec 2012, at 11:04, Roger Clough wrote: 


Hi Russell Standish  

2p is clearly needed for perception, as explained by Peirce. 


That kind of 2p can be explained in term of 3p and 1p. I don't think it is 
fundamental, and we should try to stay as simple as possible. I do agree with 
Peirce, I think, but I find the notion of 2p quite non pedagogical, and also 
unrelated to the use of the "you", that is the grammatical 2p, where on the 
contrary 1p and 3p refers easily to grammar. 


But that's only my opinion, and it concerns only pedagogy, 


Bruno 







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/29/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Russell Standish  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-12-29, 01:21:53 
Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland 


On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: 
> Hi Russell Standish  
>  
> 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. 
> It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. 
>  
> The following equivalences should hold between comp 
> and Peirce's logical categories: 
>  
> 3p = Thirdness or III 
> 2p = Secondness or II 
> 1p = Firstness or I. 
>  
> Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, 
> while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic 
> logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. 
> So . 
>  
> Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: 
>  
> http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html 
>  
>  
> "Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,  
> positively and without reference to anything else.  
>  
> Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,  
> with respect to a second but regardless of any third.  
>  
> Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,  
> in bringing a second and third into relation to each other."  
> (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904)" 
>  

Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I 
cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that 
relate to subjectivity and objectivity. 

As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. 


--  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
Principal, High Performance Coders 
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 




--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to