I have said that I disagree that all three categorical modes are always present
in a triadic Sign. My examples have been taken from the ten classes of signs
provided by Peirce (2.254). Therefore, a sign with all three relations in a
mode of Firstness or Secondness does exist.
Sung asked - how
To: Michael DeLaurentis; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness
Michael- I'm not sure of your meaning. I think that Thirdness has a vital
role to play in maintaining stability and continuity; thus, a key aspect is
to inhibit
Edwina,
You do not seem to understand my question. Let me repeat it from
[biosemiotics:6537], which was in response to your remark that
Secondness, after all, is a mode of organization
of matter which produces morphologies interacting
only within brute action and reaction. There are NO LAWS.
My
Ben, you wrote:
You have not explained what is so confining about seeing the sign as a first,
object as second, interpretant as third, in a general way. You have not
explained how that creates a problem for the sign classes. You have not said
whether you agree or disagree with Peirce about
Edwina, list,
Responses interleaved.
On 8/26/2014 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
[Edwina] Ben, you wrote:
[Ben] You have not explained what is so confining about seeing the
sign as a first, object as second, interpretant as third, in a general
way. You have not explained how that creates a
1][Ben] You have not explained what is so confining about seeing the
sign as a first, object as second, interpretant as third, in a general way. You
have not explained how that creates a problem for the sign classes. You have
not said whether you agree or disagree with Peirce about whether
Edwina wrote:
A category of Firstness can, in no way, be (082614-1)
a category of Secondness nor can it be a
category of Thirdness.
Right, and this is because, as Ben pointed out (and I agreed), all
phenomena have three basic aspects -- Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness
-- that
