Eduardo,
Just going by the last excerpt I quoted, and with due consideration given to
all the qualifications I noted about trying understand relational categories
in non-relative terms, we might try to say something like the following as a
first approximation:
1 • Present • What Is
2 • Perfect • What Has Been
3 • Future Participle (future as projected from the past and present) • About
To Be
Ref.
http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/vb/00800%20v-%20principal%20parts.pdf
That at least begins to bring out some of the relational aspect of the
categories.
Regards,
Jon
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
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
