Jon, List,
 
That is interesting, because for me the categories-topic is quite central (as the term "categories" suggests). But I see, that it may well be overinterpretation to apply the categories to everything, such as to matter and form of a thing.
I also agree, that there sometimes is obscurity about the topic, at least all that what I don´t understand seems obscure to me. I have not analysed the topic for as long and as deeply as you have, so I am not able yet to distinguish my own not-understanding from persisting obscurity.
Therefore, I have formulated for myself a view that is not obscure to me. Here below is a chapter from a text I wrote. I rename the thread, because it is not about Aristotle. I am aware, that not everybody sees sign, object, interpretant as 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, like I do.
Best,
Helmut
 

"

The three categories, the system´s “now” (17/8/23)

Firstness is anything that stands for itself, secondness means something second, reacting with the first, and thirdness is the mediation between the first two. Peirce also calls the categories “Quality, Reaction, Mediation”.

Now you legitimately may object: But there is nothing first, except maybe the big bang. Everything has got reasons, even spontaneity, and the quality something has. Reality is an entangled thing without beginning. A system too is an entangled thing.

Therefore it is helpful to distinguish between the system and the system´s “now”. All that is happening is happening in the present only. There is only one past, it is unchangeable, static. There will be only one future too. Though you can change it now, only one of many possibilities will manifest itself. The system´s “now” of a human may be called his/ her “I”, or “ego”, I think.

Seen from the present´s or the system´s now´s perspective, anything belongs to one of the categories. To firstness everything belongs, that shows up alone, that comes from the past, and appears in the present. This especially is the so- called sign. Its appearance is an event.

Secondness, from the “now´s” perspective, is a subject that becomes an object after the appearance of the sign. In the present, due to the sign, a subject suddenly becomes an object. This object is influenced by the sign, and remains for some time. It has got a certain permanence that reaches into the future. Such an object may be something immaterial too, e.g. something picked out of the memory.

Thirdness is that, what comes out of this reaction, the result. In our mind it is the idea (Peirce: “interpretant”), which we now, due to the sign, have about this object, and keep. In the nature it is a result, reaching into the future, and whose reason is from the past.

So now you may say: The first category combines past with present, the second present with future, and the third past with future. All that from the perspective of the system´s “now”:

1.: A sign appears from the past in the present,

2.: It suits a subject, which, due to this, becomes an object in the present, and remains as such in the near future too,

3.: The fact that sign and object suit each other has a reason (a causality) in the past, and delivers a result (causally too) that reaches into the future.

That what happens is the system´s “now”, and the system´s “now” is nothing else but that what happens. It is the sign process within a broader meaning, as in the non- organic nature too things happen. This “broader meaning” is called “pansemiotics”. As sign processes are actions of the mind, the non- organic nature has got a mind as well. Peirce called it “quasi- mind of the universe”, and the whole of all mind “phaneron”. For Peirce, matter too belongs to mind, it is “effete mind”, weakened, lethargic mind. So Peirce was not a matter- mind- dualist, but a mind- monist.

We just have become acquainted to the possibility to tell, from which category something is, by looking, between which two of the three tenses (past, present, future) it dwells. Now there is a second method too:

A firstness consists merely of itself, a secondness consists of two parts: Firstness of secondness (2.1.), and secondness of secondness (2.2.). A thirdness consists of three parts: (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.). But I can go into details later only, because we do not know yet, what “to consist of something” means. It is to speak about composition, a kind of system´s hierarchy, see next chapter.

Let us now leave the perspective of the system´s “now”, and turn towards the system. It consists of the components it has got, and has had during its history. Many of them, perhaps, have been called by the system´s “now” just a few times, only once, or never. Also in the “now” the whole system may be inactive, e.g. when we dreamlessly sleep, our mind. In this case you cannot really speak of a “now” at all.

"

 
14. Februar 2018 um 04:40 Uhr
"Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
wrote:
Helmut, List,

I have to say I don't see all that much of consequence
riding on the “pin the tail on the category” game that
so diverts the List on so many occasions, apart perhaps
from the functional value of social cohesion it affords.
And I have come to suspect, after many many years, that
Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness are almost certainly
among Peirce's worst coinages for their liability to
upstage, trample underfoot, and generally obscure the
main insights of relational over absolutist thinking.

But never mind that now ...

As far as Aristotle goes —

Inquiry Driven Systems • The Formative Tension
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_:_Part_2#The_Formative_Tension

<QUOTE>

b. We describe one class of existing things as substance (ousia),
and this we subdivide into three: (1) matter (hyle), which
in itself is not an individual thing, (2) shape (morphe)
or form (eidos), in virtue of which individuality is
directly attributed, and (3) the compound of the two.

c. Matter is potentiality (dynamis), while form is realization or
actuality (entelecheia), and the word actuality is used in two
senses, illustrated by the possession of knowledge (episteme)
and the exercise of it (theorein).

</QUOTE>

Dynamis can be potentiality or power. Entelecheia as actuality
is more like actualization or realization. Entelechy is often
rendered to mean completion or perfection but I would gloss it
as “that which contains its end in itself”. It brings to mind
ideas of “art for art's sake”, of a game whose goal is the play
itself, of a quest whose object is the quest itself.

Another thing that struck me about Aristotle's version is the
two senses of actualization, “illustrated by the possession
of knowledge (episteme) and the exercise of it (theorein)”.
I think this nicely prefigures the Competence/Performance
distinction emphasized in our times by Chomsky and others
in generative linguistics and allied computational models.

Regards,

Jon

On 2/13/2018 11:01 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Thank you, Jon! But, if matter is potentiality, and form is actuality, I still
> wonder why Peirce didn't assign 1ns to matter, and 2ns to form. But everybody,
> please try not to explain, at least not if it were meant for just my sake, I
> would not understand it in the moment.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>
> 12. Februar 2018 um 22:24 Uhr
> "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
> Helmut, List,
>
> Here is one of my musements on
> a few pertinent paragraphs from
> Aristotle's treatise “On the Soul”:
>
> Inquiry Driven Systems • The Formative Tension
> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_:_Part_2#The_Formative_Tension
>
> Consider especially:
>
> <QUOTE>
>
> We describe one class of existing things as substance (ousia),
> and this we subdivide into three: (1) matter (hyle),
> which in itself is not an individual thing, (2) shape (morphe)
> or form (eidos), in virtue of which individuality is
> directly attributed, and (3) the compound of the two.
>
> Matter is potentiality (dynamis), while form is realization
> or actuality (entelecheia), and the word actuality is used
> in two senses, illustrated by the possession of knowledge
> (episteme) and the exercise of it (theorein).
>
> </QUOTE>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>

--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to