before answering, I'd like to comment on an obvious confusion (see below)
Benjamin Udell wrote:
[...]
-- are defined by reference to the Sign, the Object, and the
Interpretant, respectively. The Sign is the First, the Object is the
Second, and the Interpretant is the Third. In CP227-229, which leads
toward the discussion of the trichotomies:
66~~~~~~~~~~
*A _/Sign/_, or _/Representamen/_, is a First which stands in such
genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _/Object/_, as to be
capable of detemining a Third, called its _/Interpretant/, to assume
the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to
the same Object.*
~~~~~~~~~~99
So that settles that.
[....]
66~~~~~~~~~~
*A _/Sign/_, or _/Representamen/_, is a First which stands in such
genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its _/Object/_, as to be
capable of detemining a Third, called its _/Interpretant/, to assume
the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to
the same Object.*
~~~~~~~~~~99
In the first trichotomy, the Sign or First is classed in terms of its
own category. The first trichotomy is of the Sign or First classed in
terms of _/its own/_ cenopythagorean category, _/irrespectively
of/_ its Second or Object and _/irrespectively of/_ its Third or
Interpretant. There's firstness.
In the second trichotomy, the Sign or First is classed in terms of its
relation to its Second. The second trichotomy is of the Sign or First
classed in terms of the cenopythagorean category of that in _/respect
or regard/_ of which it represents its Second or Object and
_/irrespectively of/_ its Third or Interpretant. There's
secondness. (If said respect/regard is of a quality, then the
respect/regard is a ground.)
In the third trichotomy, the Sign or First is classed in terms of its
relation to its Third. The third trichotomy is of the Sign or First
classed in terms of the cenopythagorean category in which its Third or
Interpretant will represent the First or Sign as representing its
Second or Object. There's thirdness.
[...]
Best, Ben Udell
It is unfortunate that Peirce used the terms 'First', 'Second' and
'Third' in the place of ordinals when he used the same vocabulary for
the categories.
In the texts that you chose the terms do not refer to categories, they
simply refer to 3 things presented in a given order, as in the English
language, when you say: "first I will make some coffee", "secondly I
will get some bread" and "thirdly I'll eat breakfast".
One cannot deduce from that that "making coffee" is firstness, "getting
some bread" is secondness and that "eating breakfast" in thirdness
If the sign was a First as you commented on CP 2-274 according to the
cenopythagorean category Firstness, how would you explain that the sign
taken in itself can be a quality (a First), an existent (a Second) or of
the nature of a law (a Third)?
this is what I meant in a previous message: you are mixing the
categories with ordinals. You have just confirmed my earlier intuition.
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
