Dear Eduardo, Are you picking up some tense from a language other than English I wonder? I do not understand what you suggest here.
With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:42 AM, Eduardo Forastieri wrote: > Diane, Steven, Jon: > > I have tried, but I am not yet happy with these trichotomies concerning > time. However, should ordinary linear time sequencing rather than tenseless > earlier/later relations (so called B-series) be the pivot for their > conception, then, perhaps, actual indexicality (Secondness) and modality > (possible Firstness and possible Thirdness) should be paramount: > > First: may be -now- this/that > Second is -now- this/that > Third would be -now/then- this/that > > Best to you, > Eduardo Forastieri-Braschi > > > On 3/15/12 9:26 AM, "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > >> Steven, >> >> I think the point about sequentiality is correct. >> >> Relations are ordered according to their arities or dimensions, >> and Peirce holds that three are enough to generate all others, >> but not all relations of constraint or determination, that is, >> information, are causal or temporal in nature, not even if we >> try to imagine some order of triadic causality or temporality. >> >> Attempting to understand the relational categories by setting out ordered >> lists >> of terms that are regarded as naming absolute, monadic, non-relational >> essences >> is a sign that our understanding has gone off track and fallen into yet >> another >> rut of reductionism. I don't know what to call it -- absolutism? monadicism? >> non-relativism? -- but it's just as bad a form of reductionism as nominalism. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: >>> Dear Diane, >>> >>> I agree with those that question whether Peirce would be comfortable using >>> notions of linear time, as Jon's quote highlights. >>> >>> In the context of time conceptions (for me, time is simply a way of >>> speaking) >>> I would prefer: >>> >>> 1st = the immediate experience >>> 2nd = the accessible record >>> 3rd = the manifold of unity >>> >>> In brief: immediacy, record, unification. >>> >>> It would be important for me to observe that no sequential nature should be >>> read into the process suggested by these categories, they covary in what I >>> would call "the eternal moment." The conception of time is a product of the >>> unifying effect of what Peirce calls "thirdness." >>> >>> With respect, >>> Steven >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith >>> Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering >>> http://iase.info >>> >>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Diane Stephens wrote: >>> >>>> In the book Semiotics I by Donald Thomas, he includes a chart which shows >>>> concepts associated with firsts, seconds and thirds. For example, a first >>>> is quality, a second is fact and a third is law. I understand all but >>>> second as past as in: >>>> >>>> First - present >>>> Second - past >>>> Third - future >>>> >>>> I would appreciate some help. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Diane Stephens >>>> Swearingen Chair of Education >>>> Wardlaw 255 >>>> College of Education >>>> University of South Carolina >>>> Columbia, SC 29208 >>>> 803-777-0502 >>>> Fax 803-777-3193 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of > the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU