Gary F wrote: ". . . firstness, secondness and thirdness are (6231-1) elements of every phenomenon as Peirce put it, . . . . "
This is also how I understood firstness, secondness, and thirdness based on my brief readings of Peirce's originals and secondary sources. In other words, I believe Peirce said somewhere that "Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are the (6231-2) different aspects of a phenomenon that the human mind prescind for the convenience of thought." With all the best. Sung > John, list, > > > > I agree that no phenomenon can be a "pure first", but for the reason that > firstness, secondness and thirdness are elements of every phenomenon (or > as > Peirce put it, of the phaneron). However I disagree with your belief that > "we infer the existence of firsts from a theory of signs." On the > contrary, > since a sign is a kind of phenomenon, a theory of signs has to be grounded > in phaneroscopy, in order to account for the possibility of semiosis. > Peirce > himself did not fully realize this until 1902, but his subsequent > definitions of "sign" all involve the three elements of the phaneron, > either > explicitly or implicitly. On this point I disagree not only with you but > also with Joe Ransdell, and I gave my reasons in the Ransdell issue of > Transactions, so I won't elaborate on them here. The fact that Firstness, > Secondness and Thirdness are extremely abstract concepts does not imply > that > we infer them from a theory of signs, and does not preclude them being > elements of direct experience, as Peirce said that they were. And this > makes > a big difference in the way we read Peirce's logic and semiotic, which > does > indeed apply to "dumb animals" as well as to words. > > > > gary f. > > > > From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] > Sent: 3-Aug-14 1:40 PM > To: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis > for > > > > Stephen, > > It seems to me if you are aware of something as distinct from something > else, irrespective of if you put a word to it, then it is not a pure > first. > If you are not aware of it as distinct from something else, I question > whether you can be aware of it. In other words,%2
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
