Supplement: "External, internal" are a bit likely to lead to misunderstandings, I guess. I think, or rather guess, that, as secondness is actuality and firstness possibility, this also applies to the degenerate modes (I rather think of them as submodes). So, that (3.1.) is possibility rather,
Edwina, list,
my concepts of (2.1.), (2.2.), (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.) I mostly have abducted from immediate object (2.1.), dynamic object (2.2.), immediate (3.1.), dynamic (3.2.), final (3.3.) interpretant, and also the parts of the consciousness: Sensation of altersense (2.1.), will of
John,
Possibilities may be real, but they do not exist untill they become
actual. Thus a token.
There always is the Scylla and Charybnis between understandability and
logic. But claiming existance to possibilities just does not hold.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 17.10.2017 05:48:
This
John, Jerry, list
I feel utterly surprised. It never occurred to me that LEM could be
taken as a 'technical' term. - Thank you Jerry for correcting that
mistake.
The three basic assumtions of modern logic are, of course, intertwined.
If LEM is put questionable, the other two simultaneously
Helmut - I can see how you are arriving at this outline of the
categories - matter-form-interaction - and they DO fit into the three
modal categories. My own view of the six modes possible within these
three categories analyzes how they function within time and space.
1-1
John, list,
The snippet you quoted from this recent discussion of "existence" and
"reality" wasn't mine, so I'll confine myself to your conclusion. You wrote:
. . . many sentences that talk about possibilities and
generals will cause those words to be mapped to quantified variables.
Therefore,
Edwina, list,
I completely agree with your outline of what a thing categorially is. My proposal about a thing is: Category 1 is matter/material, cat. 2 is form, and cat. 3 is interaction. 2.1. (firstness of secondness) is the form from the inside, the thing´s perspective, and 2.2. (secondness of
On 10/17/2017 8:31 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I would rather see as Mark Type Token, using Type as mediation...
I agree that the type is the mediator, but changing the order would
conflict with the names Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. It's
better to draw them in a triangle with Type at
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John - yes, I agree that we are getting hung up on words, - I have
some thoughts on why - but won't go into them.
With regard to the Mark Token Type - which I would rather see as
Mark Type Token, using Type as
We now commence discussion of the second Lowell Lecture. As before, I will
post parts of it serially, without comment, and those who have comments or
questions can post them to the list as replies, keeping the subject line
unchanged (unless a thread moves on to a topic unrelated to this lecture).
10 matches
Mail list logo
