Jon, if you can point out where Peirce's text or mine in this thread is conducive to the kind of confusion you are warning us about, I'll see what I can do to clarify things. But I don't really have the time for a wild goose chase through your old blog posts, which I expect it might well turn out to be, since it has happened in such chases too often that when I finally caught up with the wild goose, it turned out to be a familiar domestic fowl disguised behind an unfamiliar notation; so all I learned from it was a new notation which frankly was no improvement on the old one.
Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28-Nov-15 00:11 To: [email protected]; 'PEIRCE-L' <[email protected]> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Gary, all, I used the phrase “relations proper” to emphasize that I was speaking of relations in the strict sense of the word, not in any looser sense. I have been reading Peirce for almost 50 years now and I can't always recall where I read a particular usage. In the 1970s I spent a couple of years poring through the microfilm edition of his Nachlass and read a lot of still unpublished material that is not available to me now. But there is no doubt from the very concrete notations and examples that he used in his early notes and papers that he was talking about the formal objects that are variously called elementary relations, elements of relations, individual relations, or ordered tuples. I did, however, more recently discuss a number of selections from Peirce's 1880 Algebra of Logic that dealt with the logic of relatives, so I can say for a certainly that he was calling these objects or the terms that denote them by the name of “individual relatives”. See the excerpts and discussion in the following series of blog posts. http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/01/30/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-preliminaries/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/01/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-1/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/03/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-2/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/11/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-3/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/12/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-4/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/15/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-5/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/16/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-6/ And especially the series of comments on Selection 7. http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/28/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-7/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/13/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-1/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/19/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-2/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/23/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-3/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/24/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-4/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/01/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-5/ Regards, Jon On 11/27/2015 12:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Jon, > > If it’s critically important to understand the difference between > “relations proper” and “elementary relations”, can you tell us what > that difference is, or point us to an explanation? These are not terms > that Peirce uses, so how can the rest of us tell whether we understand them > or not? Being unfamiliar with those terms does not indicate lack of > understanding of the important concepts they signify. > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
