Hi John, List, On 10/20/2017 7:15 AM, John F Sowa
wrote:
Since my name was mentioned in the list, I'll say why I believe that John, your name was mentioned because you made this statement:
I was (and am) questioning whether plans or computer variables are in any way Firstness; I maintain they are instantiations, even if they deal with an unrealized future, and are therefore Secondness. My original question to Gary (and, now, you) about "some [Firstness] possibilities" which we should be "most concerned to insist upon" remains. The points you then raise only mostly affirm what I was also saying, that the universal categories are a process. Calling them arguments is, I agree, a more clarifying definition. However, that being said, I also think that framing the process question into "starting" and "stopping" points miscontrues my process points; I made no such suggestion. The proper metaphor, which you also state, is the cycle. But, under a cyclic understanding, I do not see everything as being Thirdness. I agree and grant that arguments are in Thirdness -- Peirce makes this point often in discussing his categories applied to logic -- but the components of what might go into those arguments are drawn from all three categories, which I think is what Gary was attempting to point out. Mike
-- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman Cognonto Corporation 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman http://cognonto.com http://mkbergman.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman __________________________________________ |
----------------------------- 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 .