HI, Peirce said: "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."
Why did Peirce say "a second and third into relation" instead of saying "a first and second into relation" ? Wouldn't it have been clearer if Peirce said "Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing two entities into relation to each other" ? All the best. Sung On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to confess that I don't see the problem here, or the need for an > elaborate explanation. Peirce's sentence seems to me perfectly clear in its > context (CP 8.328): > > > > [[ The ideas of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness are simple enough. > Giving to being the broadest possible sense, to include ideas as well as > things, and ideas that we fancy we have just as much as ideas we do have, I > should define Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness thus: > > 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. > > I call these three ideas the cenopythagorean categories. ]] > > > > Each of these "ideas" is the *mode of being* of a thing or idea ("that > which is"). I think Edwina also confuses the issue by saying that Thirdness > is a "mode of organization of matter". Peirce never says that about any of > his "categories." > > > > Gary f. > > > > } Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that > counts can be counted. [William Bruce Cameron] { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 28-Oct-15 08:02 > To: [email protected]; PEIRCE-L <[email protected]> > Subject: [biosemiotics:8914] RE: Peirce's categories > > > > Hello Kobus, > > > > I happen to think that is a very good question, and one that is not > adequately explained in the secondary literature. Having spent some time > digging through Peirce's works for clearer answers, I think the answers can > be found in the texts--but I sure wish Peirce had made things clearer > himself. One thing we need, I think, is a clear explanation of how the key > ideas that are being worked out in the phenomenological account of the > formal categories are being developed and refined in a diagrammatical > manner in the graphical systems of logic. That isn't much of a response, > but I look forward to seeing what others have to say. > > > > If you are interested in seeing a bit more of an answer, I have a short > paper that was presented at the Congress last summer and would be happy to > share it with you. Bill McCurdy has also worked on this problem, and he has > come to similar kinds of conclusions about how we should picture the > connections that are being formed between un-bonded monadic, dyadic and > triadic relations. > > > > --Jeff > > > > Jeff Downard > > Associate Professor > > Department of Philosophy > > NAU > > (o) 523-8354 > > ________________________________________ > > From: Kobus Marais [[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:15 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [biosemiotics:8913] Peirce's categories > > > > Dear List > > I hope that you will have patience with what may be a very ignorant > question. In CP8.328, Perice defines thirdness as follows: > > 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. > > > > Now, I would have thought that thirdness brings a first and a second into > relation to each other. Why would Peirce say that thirdness brings a second > and a third into relation to each other? In which sense could thirdness > bring a second into relation with itself? Or what am I missing here? > > > > Thanks. > > K > > > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- 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 .
