BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }No
- I don't. You are missing the point.
End of interaction.
Edwina
On Tue 05/12/17 3:53 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: But again, you can write about 'the elements of which it is
composed' . Here, 'elements' does indeed refer to 'categories'.
So you agree with Gary F. and me now?
Jon S.
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list:
Again, I reject your linear time-phased reading of Peirce; I read
Peirce in a holistic manner.
But again, you can write about 'the elements of which it is
composed' . Here, 'elements' does indeed refer to 'categories'. [By
the way, I can't find that quote in EP2:362ff].
And most certainly, the categories do belong to the field of
consciousness. Again, this is not confined to human consciousness.
Edwina
On Tue 05/12/17 3:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
According to Peirce, identification of the three Categories is the
outcome of analyzing the phaneron into the elements of which it is
composed; or more precisely, into the forms of indecomposable
elements of which it is composed (cf. EP 2:362ff; 1905).
As for "elements of consciousness," that phrase appears in several
writings in the Collected Papers, all considerably earlier than
1903--1.550 (1867), 5.241-247 (1868), 5.295 (1868), 5.395 (1878),
1.382 (1887-8), 6.267 (1892), and 7.542-3&580 (undated). It also
shows up in a 1904 letter (8.290), but there it is being quoted from
someone else.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Mike, list - I agree with you. I don't think that examining the
categorical signs of the phaneron can be understood as " analysis
into the elements of which they are composed".
Peirce referred to the 'elements of consciousness' - a key term is
'consciousness' [not necessarily human] but I understand this phrase
as 'elements of received interaction. ' I agree that it is a
'generality'. And agree with your focus on 'an instance of something
in Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness'.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
