Jack, List: JRKC: I think it close to impossible to demonstrate the necessity of a triad
On the contrary, Robert Burch wrote an entire book to present his proof of Peirce's reduction thesis ( https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Peircean_Reduction_Thesis.html?id=MK-EAAAAIAAJ) and provides a very brief summary in his online SEP entry about Peirce ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#red), while Sergiy Koshkin purports to demonstrate it even more rigorously in a recent *Transactions *paper (https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/article/886447). Personally, I find Peirce's own diagrammatic demonstration to be simple and persuasive enough--relations of any adicity can be built up of triads, but triads cannot be built up of monads or dyads despite *involving *them (EP 2:364, 1905). [image: image.png] JRKC: I can prove the necessity of that Kant calls the Noumenal apriori You have made this ambitious claim here before. What precise definition are you using for "the Noumenal"? In other words, please spell out exactly what you believe that you have proved, preferably as a complete deductive argumentation with carefully formulated premisses and the conclusion that (allegedly) follows necessarily from them. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:11 AM Jack Cody <[email protected]> wrote: > List, Robert > > Thanks for the link to your paper. > > I have to say, and this may go down like a lead balloon, but to be truly > apriori, insofar as I am certain Kant and Hume use this term consistent > with what it ought to mean, in that it be "independent of experience", then > you must make provision for results which are not restricted to the > triadic. That is, I think it close to impossible to demonstrate the > necessity of a triad, which to me, is an arbitrary schema in all geometry > and sciences, regardless of qualitative distinction surrounding it which I > do understand (Peirce and so forth — it is not arbitrary for Peirce and he > makes his arguments as everyone knows). > > I'd be interested to know if you can prove the necessity of retaining the > triad and qualify "independent of experience" (I cannot). I can prove the > necessity of that Kant calls the Noumenal apriori and it is one of the few > things which is truly apriori (I'm hard pressed to think of a second, in > fact). >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
