Auke, list
I wonder if we are misinterpreting each other.
By 'context' with regard to the categories, what bothers me is that
I don't feel that the nature or functional actions of the category
changes according to context. That is, 1ns remains as Firstness; 2ns
as 2ns, 3ns as 3ns. I don't see that their actions change whether one
uses the categories within a cenoscopic research [ie, theoretical]
versus an idioscopic [ie objective experimental of specific
situations/things].
Now - what am I misunderstanding?
Edwina
On Tue 09/03/21 10:37 AM , "Auke van Breemen"
[email protected] sent:
Edwina,
You wrote:
1] I'm very hesitant to bring in the attribute of 'context' to
analysis of the categories. I consider them universal forces - and am
cautious that 'context' reduces them to relativistic forces.
For the cenoscopic list I agree, but I think that ideoscopic
categories arise by the introduction of context.
Auke
Op 9 maart 2021 om 15:09 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Mike, list
Thanks for your comments - and - A few more comments:
1] I'm very hesitant to bring in the attribute of 'context' to
analysis of the categories. I consider them universal forces - and am
cautious that 'context' reduces them to relativistic forces.
You wrote: " 3ns is the future both because of its prescissive
logic, and it represents the continuous whole to which the cosmos is
equilibrating. In contrast, for local circumstances and objects, the
generalizing continuity is towards habit acquisition, not necessarily
a time construct such as the future"
As for the notion of 'future' - since, as I understand it, the
Peircean future is open and abductive rather than determined, then
I'm not sure that there is a 'continuous whole' in the future. And
habit acquisition is in itself, open, even in its own actions of
trying to restrict this openness! The incredible nature of Thirdness
is that there are three modes! 3-3, 3-2 and 3-1. That inserts both
actions: those of communal stability and those of local open
contextuality. That ensures both stability and openness...
2] Yes, I prefer the 'umbrella-spoke' as an image of the triad.
Peirce himself used it...1.347]. The thing about the umbrella spoke
is that it can show how an Interpretant Relation can move into
becoming an Object Relation in another triad. And, it shows that no
triad is isolate; all are networked into a complex system..
3] You wrote: " Three others, close to the root of the root, that
also give me a great deal of difficulty are 'space', 'time', and
'light' (photons). I tend to view 'light' at the actual transition
between 1ns and 2ns, with both 'time' and 'space' following in 2ns
thereafter:
Agree. With regard to time, as you know, I prefer Matsuno's
analysis. As for space - difficult; As you know, following the
analysis of Atmanspacher, I've divided space into four key zones
expressed by the Relations: internal local 1-1; internal global 3-2;
and external local 2-2 and external global 3-1. That leaves me with
the problem of what I call the 'interface relation' of 2-1 which is
both internal and external - and 3-3 which I view as aspatial and
atemporal.
That is, I consider the six Peircean Relations as operating within
specific attributes of both space and time.
With regard to 'light', I'd consider it free energy.
Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
