Dear Eduardo,
Are you picking up some tense from a language other than English I wonder? I do
not understand what you suggest here.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:42 AM, Eduardo Forastieri wrote:
> Diane, Steven, Jon:
>
> I have tried, but I am not yet happy with these trichotomies concerning
> time. However, should ordinary linear time sequencing rather than tenseless
> earlier/later relations (so called B-series) be the pivot for their
> conception, then, perhaps, actual indexicality (Secondness) and modality
> (possible Firstness and possible Thirdness) should be paramount:
>
> First: may be -now- this/that
> Second is -now- this/that
> Third would be -now/then- this/that
>
> Best to you,
> Eduardo Forastieri-Braschi
>
>
> On 3/15/12 9:26 AM, "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steven,
>>
>> I think the point about sequentiality is correct.
>>
>> Relations are ordered according to their arities or dimensions,
>> and Peirce holds that three are enough to generate all others,
>> but not all relations of constraint or determination, that is,
>> information, are causal or temporal in nature, not even if we
>> try to imagine some order of triadic causality or temporality.
>>
>> Attempting to understand the relational categories by setting out ordered
>> lists
>> of terms that are regarded as naming absolute, monadic, non-relational
>> essences
>> is a sign that our understanding has gone off track and fallen into yet
>> another
>> rut of reductionism. I don't know what to call it -- absolutism? monadicism?
>> non-relativism? -- but it's just as bad a form of reductionism as nominalism.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
>>> Dear Diane,
>>>
>>> I agree with those that question whether Peirce would be comfortable using
>>> notions of linear time, as Jon's quote highlights.
>>>
>>> In the context of time conceptions (for me, time is simply a way of
>>> speaking)
>>> I would prefer:
>>>
>>> 1st = the immediate experience
>>> 2nd = the accessible record
>>> 3rd = the manifold of unity
>>>
>>> In brief: immediacy, record, unification.
>>>
>>> It would be important for me to observe that no sequential nature should be
>>> read into the process suggested by these categories, they covary in what I
>>> would call "the eternal moment." The conception of time is a product of the
>>> unifying effect of what Peirce calls "thirdness."
>>>
>>> With respect,
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
>>> Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
>>> http://iase.info
>>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Diane Stephens wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the book Semiotics I by Donald Thomas, he includes a chart which shows
>>>> concepts associated with firsts, seconds and thirds. For example, a first
>>>> is quality, a second is fact and a third is law. I understand all but
>>>> second as past as in:
>>>>
>>>> First - present
>>>> Second - past
>>>> Third - future
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate some help.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Diane Stephens
>>>> Swearingen Chair of Education
>>>> Wardlaw 255
>>>> College of Education
>>>> University of South Carolina
>>>> Columbia, SC 29208
>>>> 803-777-0502
>>>> Fax 803-777-3193
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
> listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of
> the message. To post a message to the list, send it to
> [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
