[peirce-l] Re: A sign as First or third...

[Jean-Marc Orliaguet]

Gary Richmond wrote: Jean-Marc, You wrote: 1) we have the terms 'second', 'third' (without capital letter) without referent. The text which originally prompted this discussion is: 1. 274. A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object.  It is quite true that Peirce doesn't always capitalize ordinals. As I've contemplated the structure of the above passage what strikes me, however, as most significant is the combination of the article 'a' connected to the capitalized _expression_, for example "a Third". In all the English speaking world if one simply wanted to say "this follows this follows this" one would say something like "A Sign stands, first, in relation to x, second in relation to, etc."  never "a First". A First here  means a categorial something, one of the three elements of a "genuine triadic relation" at this level of analysis. although this is not how I understand it either -- they are not adverbs like "first", "secondly", "thirdly". I understand it as:     A Sign, or Representamen, is a first [thing] which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a second [thing] .... as it is written in:     A sign may be defined as something (not necessarily existent) which is so determined by a second something called its Object that it will tend in its turn to determine a third something called its Interpretant would you say in the sentence above that "a second something" and a "third something" are categorial (whatever "categorial" might mean to you)? /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com