Jerry, Kirsti, list,
“Spot”, “dot” and “blot” are three of the many technical terms used by Peirce to explain his system of existential graphs. Peirce has given both visual examples and definitions of all three in those parts of Lowell Lecture 2 which I have posted to the list. If you are confused about their exact role in the EG system, you probably need to review Lowell 2 by studying the complete text, which is online at http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell2.htm . Secondary sources such as Roberts are also helpful, but you need to study them carefully in order to see how the system elucidates Peirce’s logic of relations, and perhaps set aside your preconceptions about the meanings of key terms. “Categories”, “elements”, “Firstness”, “Secondness” and “Thirdness” are all technical terms of Peircean phenomenology which also have “meanings” (i.e. intensions) in ordinary language. As Peirce said and wrote repeatedly, the last three are concepts which are extremely difficult to grasp; sometimes the ordinary-language meanings of terms listed above are helpful, and sometimes they are misleading. These concepts are pretty much unique to Peirce, so you have to pay close attention to Peirce’s usage of them in context if you want to understand what they mean. Lowell Lecture 3 is one of his most extensive and cogent explanations of his phenomenology, which is (from 1902 on) foundational to both his logic and his classification of signs. This will all be discussed in connection with Lowell Lecture 3, and I don’t have time now for dozens of examples and detailed explanations of these points, so that’s all I’ll say about them for now. My previous commentary on 2.14 consisted mostly of direct quotations from Peirce and some factual observations about the sources of those quotations, which I identified in the post. Kirsti, it’s not clear what you are disagreeing with, or what exactly you think I am “mistaken” about. If you will quote my words that you disagree with, I’ll try to resolve the disagreement. But if you don’t believe that Peirce used both “categories” and “elements” as terms referring to Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness, I think you need to read the Peirce texts (especially the Lowells and the Syllabus texts given in EP2) and see for yourself. As I said, I don’t have time right now to search out and paste in dozens of examples to demonstrate what should be obvious from a careful reading of Peirce. The question of why Peirce chose the terms that he did is interesting, but I’ll leave that for the discussion of Lowell 3. If you want to get a head start on that, there’s a fairly large chunk from Lowell 3 starting at CP 1.343. And finally, my comments on the Lowell bits I’m posting are just that, comments — they are not meant to be a substitute for reading the actual Peirce texts, and probably don’t make much sense to those who haven’t read those Peirce texts. Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] Sent: 26-Nov-17 08:29 To: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: 'Peirce List' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14 Gary f., Seems to me you are mistaken. Categories and elements have a different meaning. It not just giving new names. I.e. not just about terminonology. They are not synonyms. But if anyone uses Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness as just names for classes of signs, it may appear so. A most grave simplification. If one is allowed to disagree in this discussion. Perhaps not. Kirsti <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 26.11.2017 02:47: > Kirsti, you asked why my post about 2.14 put “categories” in quotation > marks. It’s because that is the term Peirce used for Firstness, > Secondness and Thirdness in the Cambridge Lectures of 1898. > In the Lowell Lectures (and the Syllabus) of 1903, he mostly used the > term “elements” instead, as we’ll see in Lecture 3, for instance. I’m > drawing attention to the shift in terminology because I think it > reflects to a conceptual shift that becomes increasingly evident in > Peirce’s phenomenology from this point on. > > As for SPOT, DOT and BLOT, if you’ve been following Lowell 2 it should > be clear enough how they are related; anyway, I don’t think I can add > anything to my last two posts that will clarify their usage in the > terminology of EGs. > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
