Clark, lists,
You wrote: "I should note that I think “second and third” in the sentence
don’t mean secondness and thirdness but more that there are three terms.
The first is the sign and the second and third are the object and
interpretant . . . . "
If the following identities are what Peirce meant,
first = sign (S)
second = object (O)
third = interpretant (I),
your interpretation wold be right, i.e.,
"Thirdness brings O and I into relation to each other."
(102815-1)
But in the same spirit, wouldn't the following statements be also true?
"Thirdness brings S and O into relation to each other."
(102815-2)
"Thirdness brings S and I into relation to each other."
(102815-3)
If these statements are correct, it seems to me that they can be
economically combined into one:
"Thirdness brings two entities into each other."
(102815-4)
Can it be that (102815-4) is what Peirce really intended to say ? Or am I
way off ?
All the best.
Sung
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <
> jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote:
>
> For my part, I don't think the point Peirce is making in this sentence
> itself is all that simple: "Thirdness is the mode of being of that which
> is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each
> other." (CP 8.328)
>
> There are a number of ways of trying to diagram such a relation. Does one
> of the possible ways capture something that Peirce is trying to say is
> really basic?
>
>
> The simple can often be complex in certain ways.
>
> While the relation here seems simple there are many ways in which they are
> related which is complex. All those complexities are mediated by thirdness
> but take a lot to work out in practice. I should note that I think “second
> and third” in the sentence don’t mean secondness and thirdness but more
> that there are three terms. The first is the sign and the second and third
> are the object and interpretant. That might be firstness and secondness as
> I mention in my prior post, but he means it much more broadly.
>
> Peirce in these paragraphs to Welby is speaking as general as possible but
> that means the applications apply to many areas of firstness, secondness
> and thirdness.
>
> The full quote is useful.
>
> I was long ago (1867) led, after only three or four years’ study, to throw
> all ideas into the three
> classes of Firstness, of Secondness, and of Thirdness. This sort of notion
> is as distasteful to me as to
> anybody; and for years, I endeavored to pooh-pooh and refute it; but it
> long ago conquered me
> completely. Disagreeable as it is to attribute such meaning to numbers,
> and to a triad above all, it is as
> true as it is disagreeable. The ideas of Firstness, Secondness, and
> Thirdness are simple enough. Giving
> to being the broadest possible sense, to include ideas as well as things,
> and ideas that we fancy we
> have just as much as ideas we do have, I should define Firstness,
> Secondness, and Thirdness thus:
> Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively
> and without reference to
> anything else.
>
> Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with
> respect to a second but regardless
> of any third.
>
> Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing
> a second and third into relation
> to each other.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
