Vehkavaara [mailto:tommi.vehkava...@uta.fi]
Sent: April 27, 2015 10:58 AM
To: peirce-l at list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8465] Re: Natural Propositions
Jerry, You wrote (26 Apr 2015 17:14:19)
More specifically, consider CSP's letter to Lady Welby, p. 7, Oct. 12, 1904.
Dear Tommi, lists
You're right, the correct quote is:
"Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect
to a second but regardless of any third" (8.328)
Best
F
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIR
Tommi:
On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Tommi Vehkavaara wrote:
Tommi:
First, is the quote correct: "...without respect to a second..." which sounds
very odd if the Secondness is talked about?
Secondly, at least I have always seen Bateson's idea of information as a
difference that makes difference
Frederik this is extremely helpful, thank you!
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt
wrote:
> Dear Gary, John, lists
>
> It is correct that Firstness is no abstraction in the sense of Hypostatic
> Abstraction (even if the *term* Firstness is such an abstraction). But
> Firstness
Jerry, You wrote (26 Apr 2015 17:14:19)
More specifically, consider CSP's letter to Lady Welby, p. 7, Oct. 12,
1904. and his clear distinction between Firstness and Secondness.
"Secondness is that mode of being of that which is such as it is,
without respect to a second but regardless of any
Frederik, List:
>From the perspective of the chemical sciences, I find your strong conclusions
>to be questionable.
More specifically, consider CSP's letter to Lady Welby, p. 7, Oct. 12, 1904.
and his clear distinction between Firstness and Secondness.
"Secondness is that mode of being of tha
Dear Gary, John, lists
It is correct that Firstness is no abstraction in the sense of Hypostatic
Abstraction (even if the term Firstness is such an abstraction). But Firstness
as such is an abstraction in the sense of "prescission" or "prescissive
abstraction" - It is often overlooked how P's c
