Edwina, List: ET: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the Relations between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; all in the mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness.
I do not believe that Jeff's post was referring to the O-R-I relations specifically, but rather to triadic relations in general, since that is what Peirce discussed in the quoted paper. In other words, O-R-I is not the *only kind* of triad, even though it is probably the *paradigmatic example *of a triad. In any case, Peirce stated quite clearly that all *genuine *triads belong to the world of representation, and not to the world of quality or the world of fact. These are undoubtedly what he later called the three Universes of Experience--quality corresponds to Ideas, fact to Brute Actuality, and representation to Signs. However, this is not to say that all signs are in the *mode *of Thirdness; i.e., Necessitants. Even a qualisign, which must be iconic and rhematic in its relations to its object and interpretant, and thus is classified entirely in the mode of Firstness, belongs primarily to the third Universe--its "being consists in active power to establish connections between different objects." However, specifically as a *quali*sign--a quality that is a sign--it also, in some sense, belongs to the first Universe. Likewise, a sinsign belongs to both the third Universe as a sign and the second Universe as an existent. I am still thinking through how all of this works, including how the R-O and R-I relations fit into the picture, so I would welcome input from others on it. ET: As such the categories only function within the triad - the O-R-I triad. Perhaps this is our fundamental disagreement, at least when it comes to this subject. For Peirce, the categories do not *only *function within the O-R-I triad--for one thing, they are *everywhere *in his architectonic arrangement of the sciences! For sciences of discovery, mathematics as Firstness, philosophy as Secondness, and special sciences as Thirdness; for philosophy, phenomenology (phaneroscopy) as Firstness, normative sciences as Secondness, and metaphysics as Thirdness; for normative sciences, esthetics as Firstness, ethics as Secondness, logic (semeiotic) as Thirdness. Within mathematics, the categories manifest as monads, dyads, and triads; within phaneroscopy, as quality, reaction, and representation; within metaphysics, as possibility, actuality, and necessity (habituality); within logic, as speculative grammar, critic, and methodeutic. We might quibble about these particular assignments of the labels, which are just off the top of my head, but the point is that restricting the categories to semeiosis is decidedly contrary to Peirce's own approach. ET: I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - the Symbolic Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I consider that our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I therefore reject such a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes'. No one is suggesting that "pure or genuine Thirdness" is identical to an Argument; this thread concerns metaphysics in general, and cosmology in particular, rather than semeiotic. Even if "our universe [now] requires both Firstness and Secondness," this does not *entail *that they were also required "before" our actual universe came into being. While you "reject such a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes," Peirce quite explicitly believed in just such a Creator, and I honestly do not see how any *legitimate* reading of "A Neglected Argument" can deny this. CSP: The word "God," so "capitalized" (as we Americans say), is *the *definable proper name, signifying *Ens necessarium*; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience. (CP 6.452) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jeffrey, list: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the > Relations between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one > mode; all in the mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness. These are > only three of the ten - and the function of the non-genuine or degenerate > modes is, in my view, to provide the capacity for evolution, adaptation and > change. That is, Firstness linked to Secondness and Thirdness, as in the > vital, vital triad of the Rhematic Indexical Legisign - introduces novelty > to actuality to habit. That's quite something. > > My point is that the modal categories have no 'per se' reality [Jon > considers that both Firstness and Thirdness have such a reality] but are > modes of organization and experience of matter/concepts within ongoing > events, i.e, 'matter is effete Mind'. As such the categories only function > within the triad - the O-R-I triad. > > I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - the Symbolic > Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I consider > that our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I therefore > reject such a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or > universes'. That is - I'm aware that Jon bases his reading of Peirce also > within his belief in Genesis and God - but I can't see this same view > within the writings of Peirce. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
