Hi Jon, Edwina, List,
See below:
On 10/20/2017 1:54 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
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)
For there to be reality, there must be real things (objects), and, by
contrast, everything else. What I objected to was the facile transition
from idea to blueprint to whatever, with the object changing in each
change of reference. In the context of the blueprint object, no matter
what the phenomenology, nor the sign interpretation (see below), the
referenced object, the ground, is the blueprint, completely and
perfectly understood.
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.
EXACTLY SO. In fact, this same kind of relationship can be seen in
dozens of examples (actually, more than 60) of the universal categories
drawn from Peirce's writings [1].
In Edwina's comments on this thread, she told me to go study the Signs.
The problem is, semiosis, logic and many other Peircean concepts are
subsumed under the universal categories, the most succinct expression of
Peirce's architectonic, not the other way around. We need to talk about
signs when our discourse is representation, we need to talk about the
universal categories when our discourse is Peirce's metaphysics and the
"true" nature of Objects. That includes the concepts of real, existence,
identity and truth.
So, Edwina, in this case, I am not looking at "blueprint" through the
lens of representation, I am looking at "blueprint" in terms of the
nature of the object. When it comes to categorize the reality of our
real world, I think this is the proper basis.
Thanks, Mike
[1] http://www.mkbergman.com/2077/how-i-interpret-c-s-peirce/; the table
at bottom is an updated and corrected version of an earlier one. Many on
this list, including Edwina and Gary, helped point out those earlier
errors, and there likely still remain some. ;)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 .
