Dear Ben, Wilfred--
Since much of this discussion has focused on the issue of nominal
(categorical) and ordinal (sequential) distinctions, it occurs to me to
mention that "an other" and "another" can (I think) be sometimes used to
emphasize this distinction.
"Another" is sometimes used to emphasizes a reference to something that is a
second, further or additional something; whereas, "an other" is
sometimes used to place more emphasis upon the distinctiveness between two
somethings. For example if I wanted a second helping of food I might ask
for "another" helping, where as if I wanted a different type of food I might
ask for "an other" serving or entree.
I may be wrong about the above and mention it not to dispute anyone's
anyone's intepretation of these expression, but merely suggest that the
question at the heart of this discussion is indeed a deep one and not merely
question of diction. In what sense Peirce's categories represent nominal
verses ordinal modes of being remains unclear to me. Perhaps his categories
hold the key to riddle of quality verses quantity as well oridinal vs
cardinal numbers.
I guess my point is that for me this discussion of what mode of being are
signs has been very helpful to me. Not for any definitive conclusion that
have been reached but for the issues that have been raised. For example,
I'm just now wondering if there is some value in considering the parallels
between Firtness and quality, Secondness and quantity, and Thirdness and
sequence --- self, an other, another.
Otherness in itself may be adequate to account for quantity in as much as
the notion of "and" seem implicit in the notion of "otherness" as for
example a self "and" and an other self constitutes otherness. So that
quantitity is implicit in other-others. Likewise time as Peirce oft cited
examplar of Thirdness par excellence carries within it the notion of
sequence or order among others.
Just wondering.
Cheers,
Jim Piat
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
