Re: SUO: Re: Fountains Of Ontology
JA = Jon Awbrey
JA wrote:
> As I understand them, 1st-ness, 2nd-ness, 3rd-ness are abstractions
> from solid realities, a matter of the aspects to which we attend
> and the depth of perspective that we apply to what we observe,
> nothing more.
>
> Jon Awbrey
CSP On firstness: CP 5.44
... The present is just what it is regardless of the absent, regardless
of past and future. It is such as it is, utterly ignoring anything else.
Consequently, it cannot be abstracted (which is what Hegel means by the
abstract) for the abstracted is what the concrete, which gives it
whatever being it has, makes it to be. The present, being such as it is
while utterly ignoring everything else, is positively such as it is ...
An abstraction is what something concrete makes it to be. An ens
rationis is an abstraction for instance. But hey, if firstness was an
abstraction too, it would be dependent on something concrete i.e.
something else, while being at the same time irrespective of anything
else. What you refer to, Jon, is the firstness of something else (eg. of
a degenerate secondness or of a degenerate thirdness), you are not be
speaking about the categories themselves, but of categories of
categories.
The same with secondness: if its mode of being is that of an
abstraction, then it is a already degenerate.
Finally, if firstness is an abstraction from "solid realities" does it
mean that the reality of firstness depends on the reality of something
else whose mode of being would be existence or actuality?
JM
--
Jean-Marc Orliaguet ( jmo@medialab.chalmers.se )
- http://www.medialab.chalmers.se/people/jmo/
- Tel: +46 31 772 8581