Jon, you wrote:
"For Peirce, the categories do not only function within the O-R-I triad--for
one thing, they are everywhere in his architectonic arrangement of the
sciences!"
PLEASE - do not write as if you alone are the sole interpreter of Peirce.
Therefore, please write something like: ' In my [Jon Alan Schmidt]
interpretation, the categories of Peirce do not only function within the O-R-I
triad...etc etc.
Do you see the difference? I am always careful to make it clear that what I
write is MY interpretation of Peirce. I do not write as if I had the direct or
correct view of Peirce.
Now - to your points -
1) With regard to genuine - I don't see that a pure or genuine triad in a mode
of Firstness [O-R-I all in a mode of Firstness] belongs in a mode of
representation - and representation suggests Thirdness or the use of some
symbolic mediation. I simply don't see how you can claim that "it belongs
primarily to the Third Universe' [by which I am assuming that you mean to
Thirdness]??
Jeff has provided a quote: "For while a triad if genuine cannot be in the world
of quality nor in that of fact, yet it may be a mere law, or regularity, of
quality or of fact." 1.515***ET - I cannot find this quote at 1.515.
However ,Peirce does write that 'Secondness is an essential part of
Thirdness...and Firstness is an essential element of both Secondness and
Thirdness' 1.530 - which is why I consider that the three categories are a
complex embedded function.
2) Therefore I disagree with your aligning various sciences with the
categories. I don't think that his differentiation of the various sciences etc
has any real relationship to the categories. The categories, as I read Peirce,
refer to the phaneron- "the collective total of all that is in any way or in
any sense present to the mind quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any
real thing or not" 1.284
Jon, you wrote: "For sciences of discovery, mathematics as Firstness,
philosophy as Secondness, and special sciences as Thirdness; "
I don't see this. Peirce certainly classified the various fields of studies -
but not within the categories. Mathematics, which refers to 'feelings and
quality'? Philosophy referring to actual facts?
But he certainly classified fields of study into 'threes'. - and one can see
that some of the descriptions of the modal categories can be loosely applied -
i.e., abduction does indeed have an element of 'feeling, quality, freedom'; and
induction does have an element of actual fact; and deduction does have an
element of necessity. But I think this is a loose description for all three
are, after all, aspects of reasoning [Thirdness].
3) I don't see that Peirce accepted a pre-existent creator.
"Out of the womb of indeterminacy, we must say that there would have come
something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by
the principle of habit there would have been a second flash. Thought time would
not yet have been, this second flash was in some sense after the first, because
resulting from it" 1.412.
Now - this self-organized complexity didn't need a prior 'ens necessarium'. I
am aware, Jon, of your view of genesis and god, since you have provided your
supportive quotations from the Bible - which sees god as an agential creator -
but - I don't see that this Agential Force is accepted by Peirce. Peirce sees
'Mind' as the agential force - an ongoing, evolving, open force - and a part of
matter - i.e., not separate from matter- and therefore not prior to time or
matter. [see his discussion in the Reality of God - 6.489 ....
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Jeffrey Brian Downard ; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the Relations between
the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; all in the mode of
Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness.
I do not believe that Jeff's post was referring to the O-R-I relations
specifically, but rather to triadic relations in general, since that is what
Peirce discussed in the quoted paper. In other words, O-R-I is not the only
kind of triad, even though it is probably the paradigmatic example of a triad.
In any case, Peirce stated quite clearly that all genuine triads belong to
the world of representation, and not to the world of quality or the world of
fact. These are undoubtedly what he later called the three Universes of
Experience--quality corresponds to Ideas, fact to Brute Actuality, and
representation to Signs. However, this is not to say that all signs are in the
mode of Thirdness; i.e., Necessitants. Even a qualisign, which must be iconic
and rhematic in its relations to its object and interpretant, and thus is
classified entirely in the mode of Firstness, belongs primarily to the third
Universe--its "being consists in active power to establish connections between
different objects." However, specifically as a qualisign--a quality that is a
sign--it also, in some sense, belongs to the first Universe. Likewise, a
sinsign belongs to both the third Universe as a sign and the second Universe as
an existent. I am still thinking through how all of this works, including how
the R-O and R-I relations fit into the picture, so I would welcome input from
others on it.
ET: As such the categories only function within the triad - the O-R-I
triad.
Perhaps this is our fundamental disagreement, at least when it comes to this
subject. For Peirce, the categories do not only function within the O-R-I
triad--for one thing, they are everywhere in his architectonic arrangement of
the sciences! For sciences of discovery, mathematics as Firstness, philosophy
as Secondness, and special sciences as Thirdness; for philosophy, phenomenology
(phaneroscopy) as Firstness, normative sciences as Secondness, and metaphysics
as Thirdness; for normative sciences, esthetics as Firstness, ethics as
Secondness, logic (semeiotic) as Thirdness. Within mathematics, the categories
manifest as monads, dyads, and triads; within phaneroscopy, as quality,
reaction, and representation; within metaphysics, as possibility, actuality,
and necessity (habituality); within logic, as speculative grammar, critic, and
methodeutic. We might quibble about these particular assignments of the
labels, which are just off the top of my head, but the point is that
restricting the categories to semeiosis is decidedly contrary to Peirce's own
approach.
ET: I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - the Symbolic
Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I consider that
our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I therefore reject such
a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes'.
No one is suggesting that "pure or genuine Thirdness" is identical to an
Argument; this thread concerns metaphysics in general, and cosmology in
particular, rather than semeiotic. Even if "our universe [now] requires both
Firstness and Secondness," this does not entail that they were also required
"before" our actual universe came into being. While you "reject such a
pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes," Peirce quite
explicitly believed in just such a Creator, and I honestly do not see how any
legitimate reading of "A Neglected Argument" can deny this.
CSP: The word "God," so "capitalized" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator
of all three Universes of Experience. (CP 6.452)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeffrey, list: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the
Relations between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode;
all in the mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness. These are only three
of the ten - and the function of the non-genuine or degenerate modes is, in my
view, to provide the capacity for evolution, adaptation and change. That is,
Firstness linked to Secondness and Thirdness, as in the vital, vital triad of
the Rhematic Indexical Legisign - introduces novelty to actuality to habit.
That's quite something.
My point is that the modal categories have no 'per se' reality [Jon
considers that both Firstness and Thirdness have such a reality] but are modes
of organization and experience of matter/concepts within ongoing events, i.e,
'matter is effete Mind'. As such the categories only function within the triad
- the O-R-I triad.
I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - the Symbolic
Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I consider that
our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I therefore reject such
a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes'. That is -
I'm aware that Jon bases his reading of Peirce also within his belief in
Genesis and God - but I can't see this same view within the writings of Peirce.
Edwina
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
