John, list,
I agree that no phenomenon can be a pure first, but for the reason that
firstness, secondness and thirdness are elements of every phenomenon (or as
Peirce put it, of the phaneron). However I disagree with your belief that
we infer the existence of firsts from a theory of signs. On
Edwina, list,
I think we'll have space to discuss these finer points within the Stjernfelt
seminar, and as your last line suggests, we should leave them until then, so
that we'll be starting out on the same page, as it were.
In the tentative schedule attached, I've given September 1 as a
Gary F wrote:
. . . firstness, secondness and thirdness are (6231-1)
elements of every phenomenon as Peirce put it,
. . . .
This is also how I understood firstness, secondness, and thirdness based
on my brief readings of Peirce's originals and secondary sources. In
other words, I
Edwina,
I am aware that Peirce can be interpreted as thinking we can be aware of firsts
as unclassified “feels”. This is what I think led C.I. Lewis (among other
considerations) to describe uninterpreted experiences as “ineffable”. I don’t
see the sense of this, but I do think we can abstract
List,
The Books till 2005 http://www.cspeirce.com/pastbooks.htm list now has
60 books, and the New Recent Books (2006-2014)
http://www.cspeirce.com/newbooks.htm list now has 91. I'm not done yet.
I don't know how many people care about the following, but I've made
both pages more
