Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Peirce's categories - and chemical logic

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Hi Kobus:

From the perspective of chemistry, I find your question very simple.

Thirdness as a noun requires the conjunction (binding, bringing together, 
union, classifier, relator) the priori existence of the both the first and the 
second. To CSP, thirdness is an object.  See his papers on the copula as a 
logical object.

After the mental acceptance of their existence, the focus of attention turns to 
nature of relation itself.  The first and second are "pushed down" the index as 
already "known" and necessary for the next mental (syntactical) act.  

This CSP logic of relation is essential to chemical thought as it 
individualizes the concept of a relation to the particular case at hand.  For 
example, a carbon-hydrogen has different quantities and qualities than a 
carbon-nitrogen bond or a carbon-oxygen bond. It definition of thirdness 
applies to all pairs of individual chemical elements.  It should also be 
apparent that this chemical representation of thirdness necessitates the modal 
logic of physical predicates.

This is one of the distinguishing feature of synductive logic and the perplex 
number system and differentiate them from first order logic, the real number 
system and even category theory.

Mine is a minority opinion on this board. The role of chemical logic in CSP 
thinking is usually ignored and often scorned by many contributors to this 
forum.

Cheers

Jerry 

Jeff:  Can you forward an e-copy of your paper?





On Oct 28, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:

> Hello Kobus,
> 
> I happen to think that is a very good question, and one that is not 
> adequately explained in the secondary literature.  Having spent some time 
> digging through Peirce's works for clearer answers, I think the answers can 
> be found in the texts--but I sure wish Peirce had made things clearer 
> himself.  One thing we need, I think, is a clear explanation of how the key 
> ideas that are being worked out in the phenomenological account of the formal 
> categories are being developed and refined in a diagrammatical manner in the 
> graphical systems of logic.  That isn't much of a response, but I look 
> forward to seeing what others have to say.  
> 
> If you are interested in seeing a bit more of an answer, I have a short paper 
> that was presented at the Congress last summer and would be happy to share it 
> with you. Bill McCurdy has also worked on this problem, and he has come to 
> similar kinds of conclusions about how we should picture the connections that 
> are being formed between un-bonded monadic, dyadic and triadic relations.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> Jeff Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> NAU
> (o) 523-8354
> ________________________________________
> From: Kobus Marais [jmar...@ufs.ac.za]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:15 AM
> To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
> Subject: [biosemiotics:8913] Peirce's categories
> 
> Dear List
> I hope that you will have patience with what may be a very ignorant question. 
> In CP8.328, Perice defines thirdness as follows:
> Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a 
> second and third into relation to each other.
> 
> Now, I would have thought that thirdness brings a first and a second into 
> relation to each other. Why would Peirce say that thirdness brings a second 
> and a third into relation to each other? In which sense could thirdness bring 
> a second into relation with itself? Or what am I missing here?
> 
> Thanks.
> K
> 
> [UFS Logo]
> 
> Kobus Marais
> Associate Professor: Linguistics and Language Practice
> Medeprofessor: Linguistiek en Taalpraktyk
> Faculty / Fakulteit: The Humanities / Geesteswetenskappe
> PO Box / Posbus 339, Bloemfontein 9300, Republic of South Africa / Republiek 
> van Suid-Afrika
> [http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_tel.jpg]051 4012798
> [http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_mail.jpg]jmar...@ufs.ac.za
> [http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_facebook.png]<http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/University-of-the-Free-State/175257709184139>[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_twitter.png]<http://twitter.com/#!/UFSweb>[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_youtube.png]<http://www.youtube.com/UFSWeb>
> 
> [http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/inspire.jpg]
> 
> [http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/inspireer.jpg]
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> University of the Free State:
> This message and its contents are subject to a disclaimer.
> Please refer to http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer for full details.
> 
> Universiteit van die Vrystaat:
> Hierdie boodskap en sy inhoud is aan 'n vrywaringsklousule onderhewig.
> Volledige besonderhede is by http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer vrywaring 
> beskikbaar.
> 
> ________________________________
> <image001.jpg><image002.jpg><image003.jpg><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png><image007.jpg><image008.jpg>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 


-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .