Hello Jerry.
How can you say that P ignores the distinction? There is a lot of
distinguishing between being-in-itself and existential relations. I doubt that
a discussion of medads (or satsified, 0-place relations) or rhemes/propositions
solely within the logic will help, since it is a modern epistemological
(phenomenological) approach that is decisive for existence. Cheaply put,
experience and science replaces theology with respect to ens ab alio.
Jim W
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:36:06 -0500
To: [email protected]
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] A metaphysical omission of the trichotomy: ens a se and
ens ab alio
List:
CSP proposed the trichotomy as a universal logic, such that the rhetorical
terms can be used to generate an argument which is decidable - that is, is
either true or false. The binding of the 8 rhetorical terms that serve to
ground the propositions of the trichotomy to one-another is unclear (to me, at
least). Although, the rhetoric is somehow related his view of the
incompleteness of the blanks of a sentence and filling those blanks with terms
such the meaning of the medad is a proposition. (This notion of a completed
medad can (and should) be contrasted with the Aristotelian chaining of sorites,
the chaining of chemical elements into compounds and the concatenation of
variables in linear algebra by presupposing a common Cartesian axis of
representation. And, of course, the corresponding diagrams of logical objects.)
This background of CSP's attempt to construct a universal form for
argumentation ignores the distinctions betweenens a se and ens ab alio,
metaphysical terms of the influential philosopher Suarez, 1548-1617.
Chemical argumentation, which certainly is a part of universal argumentation,
distinguishes between ens a se and ens ab alio at the fundamental level of the
meaning of an atom. The sin-sign of an atom necessarily represents a name that
represents the predicates of the form. In this respect, the index of the
sinsign is a single unit, it is being that is from itself, that is, ens a se.
Chemical argumentation is extended from atoms to molecules. The sinsign of a
molecule necessarily represents a compound of atoms. The number of atoms in a
molecule is indexed on the elements present in the entity. In this respect, the
index must be complete with respect to the parts of the whole, the atomic units
that give form to the molecule. That is, an index of the sinsign must be based
on ens ab alio, being that is from others.
The ordering of concepts from ens a se to ens ab alio is the basis of the
logical conjunction of material inference that form icons. CSP then argues
these material inferences are components of the medad and beget the
contribution of the rhema to the universal argument.
While a sinsign may have many indices, the ens a se to ens ab alio is essential
to forming propositions related to CSP's notion of medads within the trichotomy.
This suggests we need to re-think the ordering of concepts that are implicit to
the terminology of the trichotomy.
Cheers
Jerry
Suárez made an important investigation of being, its properties and division in
Disputationes Metaphysicae (1597), which influenced the further development of
theology within Catholicism. In the second part of the book, disputations
28-53, Suárez fixes the distinction between ens infinitum (God) and ens finitum
(created beings). The first division of being is that between ens infinitum and
ens finitum. Instead of dividing being into infinite and finite, it can also be
divided into ens a seand ens ab alio, i.e., being that is from itself and being
that is from another. A second distinction corresponding to this one:ens
necessarium and ens contingens, i.e., necessary being and contingent being.
Still another formulation of the distinction is between ens per essentiam and
ens per participationem, i.e., being that exists by reason of its essence and
being that exists only by participation in a being that exists on its own
(eigentlich). A further distinction is between ens increatum and ens creatum,
i.e., uncreated being and created, or creaturely, being. A final distinction is
between being asactus purus and being as ens potentiale, i.e., being as pure
actuality and being as potential being. Suárez decided in favor of the first
classification of the being into ens infinitum and ens finitum as the most
fundamental, in connection with which he accords the other classifications
their due. In the last disputation 54 Suárez deals with entia rationis (beings
of reason), which are impossible intentional objects, i.e. objects that are
created by our minds but cannot exist in actual reality.[7]
-----------------------------
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 .
