Jerry, there is some very convoluted reasoning in this, but I will try to explain. See interspersed comments.
John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, 02 December 2015 6:57 PM To: Peirce-L Cc: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. List, Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Clark Goble wrote: I'm not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where structures are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in itself without relations. >From my perspective, this argument, ignores the nature of nature - that is, of >part whole relationships, known as mereology in logic and philosophy and as >"scaling" in physics. [John Collier] Part-whole relations and mereology in general only arise when we get to what Peirce calls existence, i.e., seconds. A noun is what? a part of a sentence? an object? a singularity? a relative? a grammatical structure? [John Collier] Following Stjernfelt's treatment of dicents, nouns are indices (qualities and predicates in general are basically iconic, though), and hence seconds at least. Stjernfelt argues that this is a consequence of grammar, construed broadly, or alternatively and equivalently, by their role in dicents. Can abstract the noun part to a quality (E.G., Platoness, or horseness), but then this removestheir grammatical role and turns them into qualities, If an atom is a noun, does it inherently have a structure? When was the concept of the structure of an atom introduced into science? philosophy? [John Collier] If an atom is a noun then it is a second, and there is no reason why it can't have a structure. Atomness, though, is iconic, and cannot signify a structure in itself. If a molecule is a noun, is it a "firstness"? does it inherently have a structure? Is modal logic necessary to describe the relationship between atoms and molecules? Is the inherence of "thing in itself" necessary for this relation? [John Collier] No, see my last interjection. In short, does a concept of "firstness", as a "thing in itself" inherently require a metaphysical view of all nouns? [John Collier] No, for the reasons above, if I understand what you mean here by your use of 'metaphysical' which is a very broad term. If a unit is a firstness, then: The union of units unifies the unity. Is this logically True? or False? What is your reasoning for your conclusion? [John Collier] Clark will have to address this. I find it very obscure. Best, John
----------------------------- 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 .
