Inquiry Blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/04/six-ways-of-looking-at-a-triadic-relation-%E2%8C%AC-1/
Peirce List: JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15622 ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15623 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15625 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15626 ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15627 SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15628 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15629 JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15630 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15631 SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15632 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15633 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15655 Helmut, List, It was Peirce that said that, and it is a very important observation. There is of course more to the story and I hope to get to it in time. The issues that you, and perhaps Edwina, are raising here are covered by what my first formal logic course called "the difference between logical statements and their natural language paraphrases". It is the muse-born poetic nature of our mother tongues to import all manner of adventitious extra-logical connotations into any venture of logic that takes recourse to their stocks. But the logical statement per se is more abstract than that. Its substance must be extracted from the sol of its mother liquor if Apollo be saved from deriving while intoxicated by Dionysian phantoms. Cheers, Jon On 2/4/2015 3:49 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > Hi Jon, List, > you said, that "these six sentences express one and the same indivisible > phenomenon.". That is right, the core phenomenon is the same. With "core > phenomenon" I mean the observed event. But the difference is made by the > observers, of which there are two: First the overall observer, who is the same > one in all cases: You or me. Second, the intermediate observer, with whom the > overall observer is identifying him/herself with: This one is changing, he is > always the firstly mentioned: A,A,B,C,C,B. Now the difference eg. between the > first and the second statement is, that the intermediate observer (in both cases > "A") is identifying him(her)self with "C" in the first sentence, and with "B" in > the second. In the fourth statement "C" is identifying with "A", and in the > fifth with "B". Well, somehow. Maybe "identifying" is not a proper term, because > it is too digital. Maybe it would be better to say, where is an emotional > connection, or, whom does the intermediate observer regard for the main cause > for his/her benefit, or to whom does she/he suppose more responsibility, or more > ability, autonomy, reason. So, there are six sentences, that all have different > subtle meanings, though they are telling the same event. All this I find not > easy to grasp. Linguistics, semiotics. > Best, > Helmut -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
