Dear John, List On your proposal to change the terminology for Categories :
First, I agree with you about the drawbacks of the terminology currently in use. However, it is so old and the alternative proposals so numerous that it would be opening a Pandora's box. For example, I note the following names, only in 1905, in the Logic Notebook https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$1i : seq 454: Primity, Primality; Secundity, Secundality; (see also CP 1.533: primity, secundity, tertianity) seq 457: Tertiality, Primany Secundany Tertiany ; seq 461: Monadont, Monadousy seq 463: Dyadont, Dyadousy, Secundality (dated 1905, June 2) seq 465: Triadont, Triadousy, Tertiality (dated 1905, July 52) seq 511: Primanity, Secundanity, Tertianity (dated 1905, December 20) seq 513: Dyadont, Secundanity (dated 1905, december 21) In this LNB, Peirce anticipates a practice common today among researchers, that of the "personal research journal," a record of everything they are thinking about their research or what they think at the time of their research. Don't forget: Originality, Obsistence and Transuasion (CP 2.89) Personally, in answer to your question, I think it would be very interesting to retain Primanity, Secundanity, and Tertianity as category names ("comprehensions" or "denotations"), because they would be perfectly consistent with Priman, Secundan, and Tertian as the names of the elements belonging respectively to each of these categories ("extensions"). This would avoid Firsnesses, Secondnesses, and Thirdnesses, not to mention the confusion caused by using ordinals First, Second, and Third, as pointed out by Edwina and myself. This would lead to "Primanité , Secondité et Tertianité" in French and "Primanidad, Secundidad et Tertianidad" in Spanish, with the advantage of having in each of the three languages "Priman, Secundan, et Tertian" to designate the elements. I don't see how such a change could happen. For a long time, Firstness and Primarity (or Primanity), Secondness and Secondarity (or Secundanity), Thirdness and Tertiarity (or Tertianity) would have to be allowed to coexist in the hope that the new terms would take hold. I can't imagine that any authority would be set up today to standardize vocabulary. Robert Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le dim. 10 déc. 2023 à 00:47, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> a écrit : > Dear Robert, Edwina, and all readers of Peirce-List, > > I share the concerns of Robert, Edwina, and a large number of subscribers > who rarely comment on this list. We have discussed these and related > issues before. In the early 2000s, this list was a vital source of > discussion by some of the best and most respected Peirce scholars. But > most of them have dropped out. Some still subscribe, but they don't join > the discussions because they find their ideas rejected or distorted by > people who "shoot first" and ask questions later. > > There is one point I find significant, and I wish that I could discuss it > with people who would consider it seriously. In the Logic Notebook (LNB > 268r, 1905), Peirce mentions the following four points, which he intended > to develop in detail: > > 1. The phaneron and the logical composition of concepts in general. > Here take up Kant & Leibniz & a general sketch of Existential Graphs. > > 2. The forms of elementary ideas and indecomposable elements thereof > that are *a priori *possible. > > 3. The forms we actually find. > > 4. The principal kinds of Primarity, Secundarity, and Tertiarity. > > Point 4 is significant. It seems that Peirce was considering three new > terms that might replace Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. Was that > what he intended? Or did he plan to have a new kind of triad or > trichotomy? I have been searching for some discussion of these questions, > but I can't find anything anywhere. > > I believe that those three words would be an excellent replacement for > 1-ness, 2-ness, and 3-ness. Most people who never read much or any of > Peirce's writings find the 3 "nesses" to be hopelessly confusing. I was > recently reading an article by Jaime Nubiola, in which he said that his > initial response to them was a total rejection, but he later realized that > the concepts were absolutely fundamental. I strongly agree. > > Since my primary audience is 21st C readers who are not Peirce scholars, I > don't want my readers to stop reading at the point where I mention the > three "Nesses". I would very much prefer to write Primarity, Secundarity, > and Tertiarity to Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. > > Since 1905 was a year when Lady Welby and William James were his primary > correspondents, and neither of them would ever use those words, I suspect > that Peirce was searching for a more acceptable terminology for his most > respected colleagues and other readers he hoped to reach. > > Question for Peirce scholars who have been using the three ness-words for > years: Please think back to your first readings of Peirce's writings. > Would you find Primarity, Secudarity, and Tertiarity to be more > intelligible or acceptable than Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness? Why > or why not? > > And by the way, issues about the ethics of terminology do not apply, > because Peirce frequently changed his own terminology when he found that > nobody else had ever adopted it. Even today, nobody ever uses those terms > outside of a discussion about Peirce. > > John >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
