Hi,
To my mind, Jerry is right in pointing out a general neglect on the
significance of chemistry in Peirce's philosophy. - Today, browsing
Essential Peirce, vol 2, I was dismayed, again, with the note of the
editors of a footnote of CSP on chemistry, left out. - With the excuse,
that it is long and detailed, "technical".
If anyone aims at understanding CSP, there are no "technicalities" in
his writings. So called are all about methods, methodical questions. CSP
is not writing on chemistry, or math, for its own sake. - All these bear
a message CSP has considered important.
Anyone can learn French, for example. Learning to read chemistry ot math
amounts to the same. - It may take a while, but a while well spent.
On the other hand, I object to the idea of wieving thirdness as an
object. - The copula, of course, is taken as the object of logical
scrutiny if and when anyone is dealing with sentences. That is,
somehthing (intelligible) written down.
When CSP writes on copula, he is talking about sentences. Sentences are
aimed at conveying thougts and ideas. The copula is just an expression
of the nature of relations expressed in the sentence. Right or wrong,
accurately or misleadingly.
Any sentence is just a vehicle, more or less good or bad.
With kind regards,
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 28.10.2015 18:25:
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:15 AM
To: [email protected]
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][email protected]
[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
[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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
![http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_tel.jpg]051](http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_tel.jpg]051){kind=link}
![http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_mail.jpg][email protected]](http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_mail.jpg]jmar...@ufs.ac.za){kind=link}
