84

122

the interpretant cannot be a definite individual
object. The relation must therefore consist in a
power of the representamen to determine
some interpretant to being a representamen
of the same object.

Here we make a new distinction. You see
the principle of our procedure. We begin by
asking what is the mode of being of the subject of inquiry, that is What is
its absolute and most universal Firstness? The answer
comes, that it is either the Firstness of Firstness, the Firstness
of Secondness, or the Firstness of Thirdness.

We then ask what is the Universal Secondness,
and what the Universal Thirdness, of the subject in hand.

Next we say that Firstness of Firstness, that
Firstness of Secondness and that Firstness of Thirdness

122

the interpretant cannot be a definite individual
object. The relation must therefore consist in a
power of the representamen to determine
some interpretant to being a representamen
of the same object.

Here we make a new distinction. You see
the principle of our procedure. We begin by
asking what is the mode of being of the subject of inquiry, that is What is
its absolute and most universal Firstness? The answer
comes, that it is either the Firstness of Firstness, the Firstness
of Secondness, or the Firstness of Thirdness.

We then ask what is the Universal Secondness,
and what the Universal Thirdness, of the subject in hand.

Next we say that Firstness of Firstness, that
Firstness of Secondness and that Firstness of Thirdness