On 10/28/15 7:07 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
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).
What you wrote does agree with my usage. By instantiation I mean an
instance, i.e., an example, of the category. I'm saying that 'Thirdness'
should only be used as a category, not as referring to a specific
instantiation, an example, of a category; and "a Third" should refer to
an instantiation, an example, of the category. When I say, "you are a
person", "a person" is a way to say you belong to the category of
personness; so you, as a person, are an instantiation of the category of
personness. I'm saying that this grammar should apply to the categories:
"a first" is something that belongs to the category of Firstness.
Consider this:
"Let us proceed in the same way with Thirdness. We have here a
first, a second, and a third. The first is a positive qualitative
possibility, in itself nothing more. The second is an existent thing
without any mode of being less than existence, but determined by
that first. A third has a mode of being which consists in the
Secondnesses that it determines, the mode of being of a law, or
concept."
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/entry/quote-csps-lowell-lectures-1903-2nd-part-3rd-draught-lecture-iii-3
Here Peirce says a third "has" a mode of being, instead of "is" a mode
of being. This tells me he is thinking along the standard I think should
be followed. Thirdness /is/ a mode of being, while a third /has/ a mode
of being.
Matt
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
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 .
--
Matt
-----------------------------
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 .
