Peirce's Categories

[Roger Clough]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_%28Peirce%29 everything-list

 

Peirce's Categories (technical name: the cenopythagorean categories)^[8]

Name:	Typical characterizaton:	As universe of experience:	As quantity:	Technical definition:	Valence, "adicity":
Firstness.[9]	Quality of feeling.	Ideas, chance, possibility.	Vagueness, "some".	Reference to a ground (a ground is a pure abstraction of a quality).[10]	Essentially monadic (the quale, in the sense of the such,[11] which has the quality).
Secondness.[12]	Reaction, resistance, (dyadic) relation.	Brute facts, actuality.	Singularity, discreteness, 锟斤拷this锟斤拷.	Reference to a correlate (by its relate).	Essentially dyadic (the relate and the correlate).
Thirdness.[13]	Representation, mediation.	Habits, laws, necessity.	Generality, continuity, "all".	Reference to an interpretant*.	Essentially triadic (sign, object, interpretant*).

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

10/17/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

 

These categories are the stages of epistemology.

 

Firstness is the pure quale or what I would call "inner raw experience". Subjective. Private. Personal.

 

Secondness is dyadic relation, typical of thinking,which is an activity of intelligence.

    The dyad seems to be to me between Firstness and Thirdness.

 

Thirdness is the objective form of the quale, a description for the experience of Firstness.  Objective. Public.

[Craig Weinberg]

Agree.
 

 

Secondness is dyadic relation, typical of thinking,which is an activity of intelligence.

Disagree. Thinking is first person inner raw experience too. It's a different channel of qualia (not smells, flavors, or colors, but thoughts, ideas, memeories, etc) which is meta to subordinate qualia, but there is no other significant difference. Thoughts are higher up on the monochord than other kinds of sensorimotive activity (according to thoughts, anyways...it may be relativistic).
 

    The dyad seems to be to me between Firstness and Thirdness.

 

Thirdness is the objective form of the quale, a description for the experience of Firstness.  Objective. Public.

Public objects are multisensory facts, so they have to be Secondness.

Thirdness is the unfolding relations between Firstness and Secondness - the capacity for perception to develop an inertial direction. This gets into numerology really, as three is about expression and character - the beginning of irreversibility and disambiguation. In four, inertial direction finds its limit - range or frame. Worlds, games, systems.

Craig

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

Actually, I may be accused of subtly altering the meanings of
Peirce's categories, for to him all three cats are public,
objective. He refused to subjectively step into the mind of the interpreter,
instead using the word interprant.

This is very hard to understand stuff, and so it is not surprising that we disagree on
the meanings of I , II, and III. Here's my view of II and III

1) Secondness (II) or thinking is subjective, so not public.
Its dyadic nature comes from the act of comparing 2 mental things. It is the
mental process of subjective recognition of a perceived object (I)
from a set of objects stored in memory.

You might say that III is the meaning of the thing,
the unfolding of I and II, which would give it its ternary status
sign, object, interpretant).

For example,

I = object (apple)
II = sign ("apple")
III = meaning (or interprant= interpreted sign) of "apple" to the observer,
not just the dictionary meaning.

This triad is described on


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs


A sign (or representamen) represents, in the broadest possible sense of "represents". It is something interpretable as saying something about something.
It is not necessarily symbolic, linguistic, or artificial.

An object (or semiotic object) is a subject matter of a sign and an interpretant. It can be anything discussable or thinkable, a thing, event, relationship, quality, law,
argument, etc., and can even be fictional, for instance Hamlet.[13]

All of those are special or partial objects. The object most accurately is the universe of discourse to which the partial or special object belongs.
For instance, a perturbation of Pluto's orbit is a sign about Pluto but ultimately not only about Pluto.

An interpretant (or interpretant sign) is the sign's more or less clarified meaning or ramification, a kind of form or idea of the difference which
the sign's being true or undeceptive would make. (Peirce's sign theory concerns meaning in the broadest sense, including logical implication, not
just the meanings of words as properly clarified by a dictionary.) The interpretant is a sign (a) of the object and (b) of the interpretant's
"predecessor" (the interpreted sign) as being a sign of the same object. The interpretant is an interpretation in the sense of a product of an
interpretive process or a content in which an interpretive relation culminates, though this product or content may itself be an act, a state of
agitation, a conduct, etc. Such is what is summed up in saying that

" the sign stands for the object to the interpretant. "

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 11:15:09
Subject: Re: Peirce's Categories

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:18:26 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_%28Peirce%29 everything-list

Peirce's Categories (technical name: the cenopythagorean categories)[8]
Name:Typical characterizaton:As universe of experience:As quantity:Technical definition:Valence, "adicity":

Firstness.[9]Quality of feeling.Ideas, chance, possibility.Vagueness, "some".Reference to a ground (a ground is a pure abstraction of a quality).[10]Essentially monadic (the quale, in the sense of the such,[11] which has the quality).
Secondness.[12]Reaction, resistance, (dyadic) relation.Brute facts, actuality.Singularity, discreteness, this .Reference to a correlate (by its relate).Essentially dyadic (the relate and the correlate).
Thirdness.[13]Representation, mediation.Habits, laws, necessity.Generality, continuity, "all".Reference to an interpretant*.Essentially triadic (sign, object, interpretant*).

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

These categories are the stages of epistemology.

Firstness is the pure quale or what I would call "inner raw experience". Subjective. Private. Personal.

Agree.



Secondness is dyadic relation, typical of thinking,which is an activity of intelligence.

Disagree. Thinking is first person inner raw experience too. It's a different channel of qualia (not smells, flavors, or colors, but thoughts, ideas, memeories, etc) which is meta to subordinate qualia, but there is no other significant difference. Thoughts are higher up on the monochord than other kinds of sensorimotive activity (according to thoughts, anyways...it may be relativistic).


The dyad seems to be to me between Firstness and Thirdness.

Thirdness is the objective form of the quale, a description for the experience of Firstness. Objective. Public.

Public objects are multisensory facts, so they have to be Secondness.

Thirdness is the unfolding relations between Firstness and Secondness - the capacity for perception to develop an inertial direction. This gets into numerology really, as three is about expression and character - the beginning of irreversibility and disambiguation. In four, inertial direction finds its limit - range or frame. Worlds, games, systems.

Craig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZQaNgNJKXtcJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:24:20 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

Actually, I may be accused of subtly altering the meanings of
Peirce's categories, for to him all three cats are public,
objective. He refused to subjectively step into the mind of the interpreter,
instead using the word interprant.

This is very hard to understand stuff, and so it is not surprising that we disagree on
the meanings of I , II, and III. Here's my view of II and III

1) Secondness (II) or thinking is subjective, so not public.
Its dyadic nature comes from the act of comparing 2 mental things. It is the  
mental process of subjective recognition of a perceived object (I)
from a set of objects stored in memory.  

You might say that III is the meaning of the thing,
the unfolding of I and II, which would give it its ternary status
sign, object, interpretant).    

For example,

I = object (apple)
II = sign ("apple")
III =  meaning (or interprant= interpreted sign) of "apple" to the observer,
    not just the dictionary meaning.

You are directly contradicting the information on that page, which says:
 

Firstness.     Quality of feeling.     Ideas, chance, possibility.     Vagueness, "some". i.e. nothing at all like an apple or object: private subjective experience Secondness.   Reaction, resistance, (dyadic) relation.     Brute facts, actuality.     Singularity, discreteness, “this”. ... "This" is like an apple: public objective realism Thirdness.     Representation, mediation.     Habits, laws, necessity.     Generality, continuity, "all". i.e. the semiotic medium through which private is made universal - language, gesture, etc. Craig

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Thankls for your help.  I will considerI and II asbjective.

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

10/19/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

 

 

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-10-17, 14:51:40

Subject: Re: The meanings of Peirce's three OBJECTIVE Categories

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:24:20 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

Actually, I may be accused of subtly altering the meanings of
Peirce's categories, for to him all three cats are public,
objective. He refused to subjectively step into the mind of the interpreter,
instead using the word interprant.

This is very hard to understand stuff, and so it is not surprising that we disagree on
the meanings of I , II, and III. Here's my view of II and III

1) Secondness (II) or thinking is subjective, so not public.
Its dyadic nature comes from the act of comparing 2 mental things. It is the  
mental process of subjective recognition of a perceived object (I)
from a set of objects stored in memory.  

You might say that III is the meaning of the thing,
the unfolding of I and II, which would give it its ternary status
sign, object, interpretant).    

For example,

I = object (apple)
II = sign ("apple")
III =  meaning (or interprant= interpreted sign) of "apple" to the observer,
    not just the dictionary meaning.

You are directly contradicting the information on that page, which says:
 

Firstness.     Quality of feeling.     Ideas, chance, possibility.     Vagueness, "some". i.e. nothing at all like an apple or object: private subjective experience

Secondness.   Reaction, resistance, (dyadic) relation.     Brute facts, actuality.     Singularity, discreteness, 搕his�.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3xDBA7RpCRwJ.