Dear Ben,
Just a side note on Mendaleev's talbe which I
googled. Mendaleev's periodic table was published 1869 -- Peirce New
list in 1867. So I don't think it could have been the pyramidism of
Mendaleev's table that inspired Peirce. Plus Mendeleev's original table didn't
look like much the pyramid we remember from chemistry class -- and he
called it a matrix.
But you got me thinking about this notion of
pyamidism being an inspiration to Peirce. The triangle is a
fascinating structure or form for sure but I think it was more the semantic form
of the triad than its physical form that inspired Peirce. Just as
location can be in semantic as well as physical space. Although
as you know I think that physical space (even if it is itself a crude
representation of some other reality) does
underlie our notions of semantic space and that location and mass are not just
semanticly related in common speech but are in fact related in the abstract
theories of Enstein in which mass actually bends or creates the shape of
space. So when we denote or point to an object its hard to say
whether it is its mass or location we referencing. No doubt in our
minds we probably think of ourselves as pointing to the object's form as
well. But, I still maintain that in theory all object have a set of
qualities (constituting their forms or firstness) which are distinct from their
mass/location (otherness or secondness), In fact I don't think
Peirce equated secondness with either mass or location. He seems to
have seen the continuity of space and time as being part of what constituted the
mediation of thirdness. But I think a specific place is a matter of
secondness. And I don't think he included mass as a quality. I
think he equated mass (as a force) with secondness though he does not say
this explicitely. I think mass is more or less the at the
philosophers pole of substance with form at the other pole and continutity
(representation or thought) being what mediates between them.
Didn't mean to go off in this direction but I
suppose this is my lst attempt at responding to some of your recent critiques of
my discussions of connotation and denotation. Which, as usual I find very
interesting, helpful -- and valid.
Cheers,
Jim Piat
--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com |
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So wh... Gary Richmond
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: S... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So wh... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all abou... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about? Gary Richmond
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about? Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about? Jerry LR Chandler
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all abou... Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about? Jerry LR Chandler
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about? Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all abou... Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all ... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it ... Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Graphics in posts Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: Graphics in posts Joseph Ransdell
- [peirce-l] Re: Graphics in pos... Benjamin Udell
- [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all ... Jim Piat