Clark wrote: Just to note, the quote in question is from the letter to Lady Welby and thus late. So in the quote I think he uses them to refer to terms in a trichotomy rather than entities as such. As you later note in the Harvard Lectures he also is using third rather than thirdness. Although that might just be for clarity given his audience likely wasn’t familiar with his terminology.
I do not have access to my e-CP at the moment and have only the print copy of the Peirce-Welby correspondence, *Semiotics and Significs*, to refer to. but it seems to me that Peirce introduces his categories to Lady Welby in a letter dated Oct. 12, 1904. He there uses Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness to refer to his categories a number of times, perhaps each of these terms 1/2 dozen times, most often the three together. Even the quotation under consideration as given in *Commens* is preceded by a discussion of the categories as Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness so that the context for the snippet is clear (personal note: constantly writing Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness is a bit tiresome and awkward, one of the reasons which I often simply write 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns). Still, as we've both suggested, the topic could use some further inquiry. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <[email protected]>> wrote: > > I think that another interesting research project might be to sort out how > and when and where Peirce uses first, second, and third to refer to his > categories rather than these words merely referring to 'entities'. > > > Just to note, the quote in question is from the letter to Lady Welby and > thus late. So in the quote I think he uses them to refer to terms in a > trichotomy rather than entities as such. As you later note in the Harvard > Lectures he also is using third rather than thirdness. Although that might > just be for clarity given his audience likely wasn’t familiar with his > terminology. > > That said I would be interested in the evolution of the terminology for > the reasons you note. > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
