Mike, List: I took Gary F.'s point to be that no phenomenon can be properly categorized as *only *Firstness, *only *Secondness, or *only *Thirdness.
CSP: What I term *phaneroscopy *is that study which, supported by the direct observation of phanerons and generalizing its observations, signalizes several very broad classes of phanerons; describes the features of each; shows that although they are so inextricably mixed together that no one can be isolated, yet it is manifest that their characters are quite disparate; then proves, beyond question, that a certain very short list comprises all of these broadest categories of phanerons there are; and finally proceeds to the laborious and difficult task of enumerating the principal subdivisions of those categories. (CP 1.286, c. 1904; italics in original) However, I wonder if Mike's point is manifest in Peirce's later discussions of the three Universes of Experience. CSP: Of the three Universes of Experience familiar to us all, the first comprises all mere Ideas, those airy nothings to which the mind of poet, pure mathematician, or another *might *give local habitation and a name within that mind. Their very airy-nothingness, the fact that their Being consists in mere capability of getting thought, not in anybody's Actually thinking them, saves their Reality. The second Universe is that of the Brute Actuality of things and facts. I am confident that their Being consists in reactions against Brute forces, notwithstanding objections redoubtable until they are closely and fairly examined. The third Universe comprises everything whose being consists in active power to establish connections between different objects, especially between objects in different Universes. Such is everything which is essentially a Sign -- not the mere body of the Sign, which is not essentially such, but, so to speak, the Sign's Soul, which has its Being in its power of serving as intermediary between its Object and a Mind. Such, too, is a living consciousness, and such the life, the power of growth, of a plant. Such is a living constitution -- a daily newspaper, a great fortune, a social "movement." (CP 6.455, 1908; italics in original) Only the *Idea* of the building belongs to the first Universe as a real possibility. It is *represented *(in different ways) by both the blueprint and the constructed building itself, which themselves belong to the second Universe of Brute Actuality. The relations among these different objects that facilitate such mediation belong to the third Universe of Signs. In multiple drafts of "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," Peirce also directly associated the second Universe with Matter and the third Universe with Mind. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > Hi Gary F., List, > > I separately responded to Jon on his quotes, so will not discuss further > here. > > On 10/20/2017 10:45 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Mike, > > > > I think Jon’s post should clarify what is meant by a “real possibility.” > But I’d like to add a point about the “universal categories”: they are not > watertight compartments, or separate bins into which phenomena can be > sorted. Any given phenomenon, such as an argument or a blueprint, can have > its Firstness, its Secondness *and* its Thirdness. In fact you can’t have > Thirdness that doesn’t involve Secondness, or Secondness that doesn’t > involve Firstness. > > I would say, in contrast, that it is EXACTLY the process of sorting things > into the bins of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness that Peirce was, > throughout many all of his writings, trying to instruct us. I very often > hear common themes of categorization and natural classes in Peirce's > writings, don't you? Sure, there are always edge cases, and the inspections > of those are partly what helps bring clarity and understanding to our > thinking, so should be highly valued. And, of course, we may not always > categorize them correctly (but should try to). > > A blueprint is a First relative to the universe of real buildings, i.e. it > is the mere idea of a building. A physically instantiated blueprint, like a > “replica” of an existential “graph,” is a Second in the universe of > representations, a token of a type. And it is a Third in its function as an > iconic sign interpretable by the builders. > > With all due respect, I could not disagree more, and I think this shows > the muddied thinking around the universal categories. A blueprint and a > physical building are both Secondness, period. There is certainly Firstness > associated with a building, such as design and form and possible materials, > but not a blueprint. A blueprint is its own Secondness. To my > understanding, nothing material or in existence can ever be in Firstness; > they are characters or attributes, not instances. We also have a Thirdness > about a building, but that relates to methods for constructing buildings, > limits and laws that govern how and within what constraints it can be > built, or inclusion of buildings as a type of architectural artifact. > > Thanks, Mike >
----------------------------- 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 .
