Stan, to answer your question:
Peirce’s “firstness” is one of three elements of the phaneron, i.e. an element of experience. John’s “firstness” is certainly not that, and as far as I can tell does not relate to Peirce’s phaneron at all. I don’t think John has any use for phaneroscopy. gary f. From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29-Nov-14 9:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [biosemiotics:7591] Re: Natural Propositions 6 John wrote: I don't think that firstness can be directly experienced. At best it would be an indeterminate mush. James called it "a blooming, buzzing confusion", and C I Lewis called it "ineffable". I find their arguments convincing. S: How does this relate to Peirce's 'phaneron'? STAN
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
