Jon,list.
I have tried to construct a working tree until we get to the form "a:a:b"
which is a more challenging issue than some, I think. I remember from the NLC
(1867) a sort of struggle going on with "mere agreement" and concurrence. I was
struck there that "this" or "that" -----is black turned into a nightmare.
terms
/
non-relative relative
/ /
simple non-simple So,1) "this is black" (b)
only simple non-relative 2) "this stove is black (s,b) 3) "this black stove
is black " (b,b,s) * trouble spot * * I believe in NLC 1867 Peirce
introduced an abstract property "blackness" possessed by black things In sec
4 AOL 1880 Peirce says that singular reference is maintained. My feeling is
that all of these are non-relatives compounded by external operations. I think
of these as compound non-relatives because the operations are external. You
could symbolize Boole : sb = SB1 + SB2 + SB3.....etc. "this" or "that" black
stove. You don't need to bring in property identity, redundancy, or
essentialism. You could, though. Why not? For instance, you could have
logical sums for { Sn.. } xor { Bn.. } xor { SBn.. } such that sosmething that
is a black stove cannot be black or a stove. Jim W > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015
23:02:17 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce’s 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 •
> Selection 4
>
> Re: Jim Willgoose
> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15677
>
> Jim, List,
>
> These are some of the reasons that I prefer
> "elementary relative" to "individual relative"
> and "absolute", "monadic", or "non-relative" to
> "term of singular reference", since the words
> "individual" and "singular" have too many
> meanings in too many different contexts.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 2/13/2015 10:21 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
> > Jon,
> >
> > Yes. You are right. I should have stayed out of that one on reference.
> > The question of generality is open though.
> >
> > Jim W
> >
> >> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:04:13 -0500
> >> From: [email protected]
> >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce’s 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 •
> >> Selection 4
> >>
> >> Jim, List,
> >>
> >> No, I think that is incorrect.
> >>
> >> "A non-relative term may be called a term of singular reference."
> >>
> >> I don't think that leaves any room for A:B to be a term of singular
> >> reference.
> >>
> >> The series singular, dual, plural here describes the arities 1, 2, ≥ 3.
> >>
> >> A non-relative term is also known as an absolute term.
> >>
> >> The letters A, B, C here refer to individuals, not classes.
> >>
> >> All the concepts and distinctions treated in this chapter, modulo the usual
> >> variations in notation and terminology, are discussed in much greater
> >> detail
> >> in the 1870 Logic of Relatives. See the following article, where I added
> >> much
> >> in the way of illustrative examples:
> >>
> >> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
>
> --
>
> 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 .
