Matt wrote; 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."
I'm not sure that I fully agree. Sometimes Peirceans like to speak of, say, Thirdness, *as* a category, or in some other way which does not represent an "instantiation" of a category (I'm not even sure what "instantiation" means exactly in regard to 1ns and 3ns especially). Also, since except for certain types of analysis, the categories are all three present in any genuine tricategorial relation, "instantiation" seems a problematic expression. Perhaps I'm missing your meaning, however. I agree with you that saying "category the Third" is just (Peirce's) bad grammar. I don't know anyone else who uses that expression today. And I would also say that "a Thirdness" is not only bad grammar, but probably altogether meaningless. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
