Jon,
This doesn't explain “the difference between relations proper and elementary relations” (which you said was "critically important to understand"), because the latter term is itself used in a specific "technical sense" by Peirce in the places you cite. It doesn't help to understand which “technical sense” of the word you have in mind. My guess is that what’s confusing some of us in understanding triadic relations is that some of them relate correlates which are themselves relations. (Perhaps correlates which are not relations are “individual relatives”?) Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 2-Dec-15 22:30 Peircers, As I wrote before, I used the phrase "relations proper" merely to emphasize that I was talking about relations in the technical sense. Another common idiom to the same purpose would be "relations, strictly speaking". As for "elementary relatives", Peirce uses this term in the 1870 Logic of Relatives. See, for example, CP 3.121ff and a later remark at 3.602ff. See Also: ☞ <https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Peirce&as_epq=Elementary+Relative> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Peirce&as_epq=Elementary+Relative And toward the end of this section: ☞ <http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_:_Introduction#Operational_Representation> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_:_Introduction#Operational_Representation Regards, Jon > 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 a lot of still unpublished material that is not available to me now.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”. > … > > On 11/27/2015 12:42 PM, <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> g...@gnusystems.ca 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. >> >> From: Jon Awbrey [ <mailto:jawb...@att.net> mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: >> 27-Nov-15 11:16 >> >> Gary, all, >> >> It is critically important to understand the difference between >> relations proper and elementary relations, also known as tuples. >> >> It is clear from his first work on the logic of relative terms that >> Peirce understood this difference and its significance. >> >> Often in his later work he will speak of classifying relations when >> he is really classifying types of elementary relations or single tuples. >> >> The reason for this is fairly easy to understand. Relations proper >> are a vastly more complex domain to classify than types of tuples so >> one naturally reverts to the simpler setting as a way of getting a foothold >> on the complexity of the general case. >> >> But nothing but confusion will reign from propagating the categorical error. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon -- academia: <http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey> http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: <http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: <http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/> http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: <http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: <http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey> http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: <https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache> 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 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 .
