Dear Gary, lists - But my argument was not at all to deny firstness. It was just to give the argument that no category ever appears isolated. And that there is a hiearchy, paradoxically beginning with Thirdness because it involves 2 and 1 so that focusing on Firsts involves the prescissive bracketing of 2 and 3. Best F
Den 27/04/2015 kl. 01.37 skrev Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com<mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com>> : Frederik, lists, You write, "But pain involves secondness." No doubt. I had already written there is "certainly secondness involved" in my unexpected sudden eye pain example. But, unless one wants to deny the reality of 1ns, as apparently John would, then one must admit that pain--and, as Peirce says, each unique instance of pain--has its own distinct character, it's unique quality (firstness). And are the three phenomenoloogical categories ever found apart from the others in reality? Peirce says no (although one may predominate). So to say that pain involves secondess doesn't deny firstness at all as I see it. Best, Gary
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
