The wonders of Google,
Commens Peirce Dictionary: Thirdness, Third [as a
category]<http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html>:
"
Thirdness, Third [as a category]
(see also Firstness, Secondness, Categories)
"Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or
predicates. Firstly come "firstnesses," or positive internal characters of
the subject in itself; secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of
one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third
subject; thirdly comes "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental
influence of one subject on another relatively to a third." ('Pragmatism',
CP 5.469, 1907)"
'via Blog
this'<https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk>
I didn't realize that Steven was quoting this in his most interesting post.
Cheers. S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Gary Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* Gary Moore <[email protected]>
> *To:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:14 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
>
> Thank you! I was expecting more. But it just seems to be passing
> phraseology.
> GCM
>
> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]>
> *To:* Gary Moore <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:09 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
>
>
> It's there, second sentence of the second paragraph.
>
>
> Steven
>
> --
> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
> http://iase.info
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Gary Moore wrote:
>
> > Dear Doctor Ericsson-Zenith,
> > Thank you for the reply! However, unless my brain is far too fuzy, I do
> not find John Deely's quotation "the positive internal characters of the
> subject in itself". Did Doctor Deely misquote? Did the quote come from
> elsewhere?
> > -----
> > It is an intriguing statement possibly subtantualizing both "internal"
> and "subject" which, in Deely and Poinsot's terminology would mean they are
> foundational terminals in a Peircean Triad would it not?
> > -----
> > Does anyone have suggestions, referrences, or information?
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration,
> > Gary C. Moore
> >
> > P. S. If I have done anything improper please tell me. I am new to the
> group.
> > From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]>
> > To: Gary Moore <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > CP 5.469 This illustration has much more pertinence to pragmatism than
> appears at first sight; since my researches into the logic of relatives
> have shown beyond all sane doubt that in one respect combinations of
> concepts exhibit a remarkable analogy with chemical combinations; every
> concept having a strict valency. (This must be taken to mean that of
> several forms of expression that are logically equivalent, that one or ones
> whose analytical accuracy is least open to question, owing to the
> introduction of the relation of joint identity, follows the law of
> valency.) Thus, the predicate "is blue" is univalent, the predicate "kills"
> is bivalent (for the direct and indirect objects are, grammar aside, as
> much subjects as is the subject nominative); the predicate "gives" is
> trivalent, since A gives B to C, etc. Just as the valency of chemistry is
> an atomic character, so indecomposable concepts may be bivalent or
> trivalent. Indeed, definitions being scrupulously observed, it will be seen
> to be a truism to assert that no compound of univalent and bivalent
> concepts alone can be trivalent, although a compound of any concept with a
> trivalent concept can have at pleasure, a valency higher or lower by one
> than that of the former concept. Less obvious, yet demonstrable, is the
> fact that no indecomposable concept has a higher valency. Among my papers
> are actual analyses of a number greater than I care to state. They are
> mostly more complex than would be supposed. Thus, the relation between the
> four bonds of an unsymmetrical carbon atom consists of twenty-four triadic
> relations.
> >
> > Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
> indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or
> predicates. Firstly come "firstnesses," or positive internal characters of
> the subject in itself; secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of
> one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third
> subject; thirdly comes "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental
> influence of one subject on another relatively to a third. Since the
> demonstration of this proposition is too stiff for the infantile logic of
> our time (which is rapidly awakening, however), I have preferred to state
> it problematically, as a surmise to be verified by observation. The little
> that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that matter, to any other
> department of philosophy), has been entirely the fruit of this outgrowth
> from formal logic, and is worth much more than the small sum total of the
> rest of my work, as time will show.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
> > http://iase.info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Gary Moore wrote:
> >
> > > To whom it may concern,
> > > In John Deely's FOUR AGES OF UNDERSTANDING page 647 he quotes Peirce
> as saying "the positive internal characters of the subject in itself"
> [footnote 109 Peirce c. 1906: CP 5.469].
> > > -------------
> > > I only have the two volumes of THE ESSENTIAL PEIRCE and cannot locate
> it.
> > >
> > > Gary C Moore
> > > P O Box 5081
> > > Midland, Texas 79704
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body
> of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to
> [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
> listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body
> of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to
> [email protected]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
