Gary F. wrote:
As Peirce said somewhere else, I’m sure that’s as perfectly clear as a bottle of ink. On the contrary, I agree with your analysis and find it, well, lucid. 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 9:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, > > > > Yes, I think it’s true that Peirce’s explicit references to Firstness, > Secondness and Thirdness become central to his work only in the 20th > Century — starting perhaps with the Minute Logic of 1902, where he first > connects them with “phenomenology”, or perhaps with the Carnegie > Application, I forget which came first. In the Welby letter we’ve been > looking at, which is from 1904, his use of the “-ness” forms should make it > clear that his references to “a second” and “a third” in the definition of > Thirdness are not references to instantiations of Secondness or of > Thirdness. Whatever those things are, they are only second and third in > relation to “that which is such as it is,” which is first in that relation > — which is triadic because it is what it is only by virtue of its being > involved with them both in a way different from the way that any one of the > three is related to any *one* of the others. > > > > As Peirce said somewhere else, I’m sure that’s as perfectly clear as a > bottle of ink. > > > > } All persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. [Kurt Vonnegut] { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 28-Oct-15 17:50 > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's categories > > > > Gary, list, > > > > Thanks for your contribution to the discussion of this question which, > however, seems to focus on Peirce's writings on categories prior to the > 20th century. > > > > At the moment my sense (and that's pretty much all it is, while I do think > that at least a mini-research project is in order) is that as he > approaches, then enters, the 20th century that Peirce uses the -ness suffix > more and more, especially in introducing his tricategoriality into a > discussion. Once *that*'s been done, the context makes it clear what is > first (i.e, 1ns), etc. in the ensuing discussion. > > > > So, in a word, I think he sees that employing the -ness helps disambiguate > its use in any given context, especially in introducing his no doubt > strange, to some even today, notion of three phenomenological categories. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
