Gary Richmond wrote:
Ben, list,
It seems to me that you are quite right about the "distinctly
un-English" use of the ordinals 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' by
Peirce in the passages being considered. Capitalization is used for
'terms defined' as he writes, for example, at the beginning of the NA
and elsewhere.
You quoted Jean-Marc then commented:
J-MO 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)?
BU: It can be a First, a Second, etc., in various ways and respects. This is elementary stuff in Peirce.
It/ is/ elementary stuff for /tout le monde /(excepting apparently a
few) and for the very good reasons offered in your recent analysis, at
least for those with minds open to 'see' (not to suggest that Jim's
isn't open--but can he see? :-)
I know at least 2 other people who don't think that this is elementary,
and the ability to doubt is a requirement I think to gain knowledge.
1) Jon Awbrey with which you had a similar discussion on arisbe-l a year
ago.
http://stderr.org/pipermail/arisbe/2005-June/002802.html
2) R.Marty in 1997 on peirce-l (I found this mail in my archives, I
doubt it is available anywhere though since the peirce-l messages were
not archived at that time)
=================================
From: "marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:Back to the ground : putting in order the house?
[...] Personally I choose Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness for the
comprehension and Primans, secondans and tertians for the elements of
the extension. Thus one avoids confusions with the words first, second
and third used as ordinals, the major confusion occurring with CP 2-274 :
..............................quote..................................................
A sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine
triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of
determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same
triadic relation to its Object in which it stand itself to the same Object.
............................end of
quote...........................................
It is clear that the sign isn't always a Priman (a First), otherwise how
can we understand the classification of the signs in which the sign can
be a priman, a secundan or a tertian? First , here, cannot be confused
with "firstness"; using "priman" the confusion is not possible
=================================
/JM
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
