My uses of 'First', 'Second', or 'Third' are to denote specific
instantiations of the categories of Firstness, Secondness, or Thirdness.
This is similar to how I use 'a general' as a specific instantiation of
generality. Perhaps we all should follow this standard. Saying "category
the Third" just seems like bad grammar. Same with saying "a Thirdness."
Matt
On 10/28/15 5:49 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Gary, list,
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion of this question which,
however, seems to focus on Peirce's writings on categories prior to
the 20th century.
At the moment my sense (and that's pretty much all it is, while I do
think that at least a mini-research project is in order) is that as he
approaches, then enters, the 20th century that Peirce uses the -ness
suffix more and more, especially in introducing his tricategoriality
into a discussion. Once /that/'s been done, the context makes it clear
what is first (i.e, 1ns), etc. in the ensuing discussion.
So, in a word, I think he sees that employing the -ness helps
disambiguate its use in any given context, especially in introducing
his no doubt strange, to some even today, notion of three
phenomenological categories.
Best,
Gary R
-----------------------------
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 .
