Here is the entire beginning of my section 5 to which Gary F. refers:
*"5. Some preliminary and necessary clarifications about terminology.*
*Universal Categories are "categories of elements of phenomena.*"
Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish clearly, in any statement,
whether one is referr
Robert, you wrote yesterday:
RM: here is section 5 of my preprint in which I point out that Peirce proposes
a name to designate each category and a derived name to designate the elements
(phanerons) belonging to each of these categories.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
correction concerning item 1:
1- I construct a mathematical object diagrammatized as follows: 3 → 2 →1
(C), which is a Poset in which the graphs-numbers 3,2,1 are connected by
arrows that represent homogenous binary relations between them that verify
the axioms required to be a Poset
Honorary Pro
Gary F. ... now it's you who goes faster than the music
GF : *"Peirce never refers to phanerons as “elements,” or to elements as
“phanerons.” *(sic). I have never written such nonsense. For more than 40
years I have been talking about the elements of phenomena; I have even
built a "trichotomi
Jack, list,
I should point out (to avoid further confusion) that Robert’s brand of category
theory is a post-Peircean development and does not adhere strictly to Peirce’s
phaneroscopic terminology. Peirce never refers to phanerons as “elements,” or
to elements as “phanerons.” He refers to the u
that all phenomena are Firsts.
Gary f.
From: Helmut Raulien
Sent: 9-Jul-21 12:38
To: g...@gnusystems.ca
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 12
Gary F.,
The idea, that a phenomenon is a first, I have got during the recent thread
Helmut,
A phenomenon is anything that appears, or is present to the mind. The phaneron
is the collective total of whatever appears or could appear or be present to
the mind generically (not to a particular mind).
The phaneron, or any phenomenon, always has three elements, Firstness,
Secondness