Facing objects of haecceity: advantages of Peirce’s categories

This inquiry demonstrates Scotus’ and Peirce’s shift from representing haecceities as momentary objects in Secondness (depending heavily upon sensation), to the recognition that haecceities force their way into the awareness as mental objects. As such, both conclude that mental objects to be haecceities. Nonetheless, it is Peirce who more clearly determines that haecceities materialize as apparitions (cognitions) – incorporating physically absent places, objects, and moments. Peirce’s continuum, and his commitment to realism are responsible for considering apparitions to be haecceities. Both Peirce and Scotus contend that although haecceities are individual, they, nevertheless should be folded into the continuum. In line with the Scholastic record, Peirce defines haecceity as “thisness,” which encompasses the riveting effect of Objects (including places) – proximate to observers (inward and outward) space and/or time. Haecceities allow for intrusion of present objects and places upon interpreters’ consciousness – noticing properties of objects with some degree of awareness. This beckoning effect of objects in single, intense experiences accounts for selection of certain objects over others in the attentional stream. As such, context illuminates the core meaning within the sign (synchronic, diachronic) – demonstrating the need for Peirce’s continuum. But, Peirce’s continuum does not stop at present objects (mental, physical); it proposes the need for “concretion,” rather than Scotus’ adherence to “contraction.” In other words, the “all cannot be in the one” (as Scotus claims) if possible objects are not incorporated into the continuum. In short, Peirce’s “concretion” supplies a fuller account of object meaning, given that it integrates future objects and future meanings (would-bes).