Re: Charles Sanders Peirce, "On a New List of Categories"

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Rich,

The material on Peirce in Wikipedia is a mess --
speaking as one of several foolhardy Peirceans
who "died on the hill, or their swords, etc."
trying to "fix it", all to no avail.

Best to get the 2 volume "Essential Peirce" for starters,
and check out the articles at Joseph Ransdell's "Arisbe":

http://www.cspeirce.com/

The first thing to know about Peirce's Categories
is that he also called them "Predicaments", after
a clssical-medieval usage that means a predicate
of a predicate.  In terms of the extensions of
concepts this means that a Category is really
a class of relations.

Cheers,

Jon

CC: Arisbe List, Inquiry List

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Today's Topics:
>
>    5.  [Peirce's] ON A NEW LIST OF CATEGORIES (Rich Cooper)
>    9.  [Peirce's] ON A NEW LIST OF CATEGORIES (Gill Philip)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:06:03 -0700
> From: "Rich Cooper" <rich_AT_Englishlogickernel.com>
> Subject: [Corpora-List] Pierce's ON A NEW LIST OF CATEGORIES
> To: <corpora_AT_uib.no>
> 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> I've been trying to read Pierce's "On a New List of Categories" at
> 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-frame.htm
> 
> The problem is that it is highly populated with arcane terms that have
> little or no meaning to my 2008 experience.  Does anyone have a more modern
> version, perhaps a rephrasing of the same material?  This is the part about
> Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness, and all the ancillary materials in the
> following matrix from
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce#Theory_of_categories
> 
> Peirce's Categories (technical name: the cenopythagorean categories[21]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce#cite_note-cenopythagorean-20#cite_note-cenopythagorean-20> )
> 
> Name:
> 
> Typical characterizaton:
> 
> As universe of experience:
> 
> As quantity:
> 
> Technical definition:
> 
> Valence, "adicity":
> 
> Firstness.
> 
> Quality of feeling.
> 
> Ideas, chance, possibility.
> 
> Vagueness, "some".
> 
> Reference to a ground (a ground is a pure abstraction of a quality)[22]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce#cite_note-ground-21#cite_note-g
> round-21> .
> 
> Essentially monadic (the quale, in the sense of the thing with the quality).
> 
> Secondness.
> 
> Reaction, resistance, (dyadic) relation.
> 
> Brute facts, actuality.
> 
> Singularity, discreteness.
> 
> Reference to a correlate (by its relate).
> 
> Essentially dyadic (the relate and the correlate).
> 
> Thirdness.
> 
> Representation.
> 
> Habits, laws, necessity.
> 
> Generality, continuity.
> 
> Reference to an interpretant*.
> 
> Essentially triadic (sign, object, interpretant*).
> 
> From hearing previous discussions about Pierce, this seems to be the kernel
> concept of his works.  So it would be useful to know what he means in these
> areas.
> 
> Alternative URLs appreciated,
> 
> -Rich
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Rich Cooper
> 
> EnglishLogicKernel.com

> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:49:28 +0200
> From: "Gill Philip" <g.philip.polidoro_AT_gmail.com>
> Subject: [Corpora-List] Pierce's ON A NEW LIST OF CATEGORIES
> To: "Rich Cooper" <rich_AT_englishlogickernel.com>
> Cc: corpora_AT_uib.no
> 
> Dear Rich,
> 
> having glanced at the URL you've been "trying to read", (Ithink)  I see what
> the problem is - the paper is a very concise synthesis of ideas which, if I
> remember correctly (and it's been a long time since I read Peirce), are
> explained 'long-hand' elsewhere. Sometimes those seemingly brief writings
> actually take far longer to grasp than the longer ones...
> If you can get hold of a copy of Peirce's complete writings, you'll find all
> the terms better set out, probably over a series of chapters.
> Try C.S Peirce (1857-1866 / 1965) Collected Papers. Cambridge MA: Harvard
> University Press.
> If you're lucky, google books might have indexed it too. Otherwise we'll
> have to wait on some kind soul who'se modernised the language a bit.
> 
> hope this is some help to you,
> best,
> Gill

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
mathweb: http://www.mathweb.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
p2p wiki: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/User:JonAwbrey
planet math: http://planetmath.org/?op=userobjs;id=15246
ontolog: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey
http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=5619
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o