Jon, List,
Thank you. I am happy, that I now am more or less clear about the difference eg. between relation and relative term, and general and elementary. I find it complicated to apply the mathematical relation concept to realworld situations. There seem to be relations (and relative terms) of the mind, and others of the material-energetic world. Eg. if there is a wall made of bricks, one can tell the relations each brick has towards another brick, and so define the topology of the wall with relations from relative terms like "is above of", "is north of", and so on. But if Alice loves Bob, then this is a relation in Alices mind (a subset of a product of the set of all aspects in Alices mind with itself). And "Alice and Bob love each other" perhaps is a relation between the relations in Alices mind, and those in Bobs mind. But which are these aspects of the mind? Not very easy, all this, I mean, at least at this intra-subjective level. Maybe it leads astray to some sort of obsolete reductionism, I dont know.
Best,
Helmut
Inquiry Blog
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/12/08/relations-their-relatives-16/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/12/10/relations-their-relatives-17/
Peirce List
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17890
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17894
JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17902
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17907
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17911
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17916
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17955
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17956
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17958
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17991
Helmut, List,
I put a revision of that last example on my blog, linked above.
I amended one statement to say that “the elementary relation by
itself does not ''completely'' determine the general relation or
general relative term under which it may be considered”, since
we allow for partial determination or “determination in measure”
in this context.
The relationship between tokens and types, under one pair of terms
or another, has been pervasive in science and knowledge-oriented
philosophy since the days of Plato and Aristotle at least, since
we have knowledge of forms and generalities, not haecceities or
individuals in themselves.
There is a communication problem that arises here, because the words
“token” and “type” tend to be used differently outside Peirce studies,
often referring to objects that aren't always signs. So I have found
it less confusing to use more neutral terms, like “instance of a type”
or “element of a set”.
In that sense, we can say that (Cain, Abel) is an instance of the type B,
where B is a particular subset of all ordered pairs of biblical figures.
Regard,
Jon
On 12/9/2015 11:40 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> Helmut, List,
>
> I put a better formatted version of my last email in this blog post:
>
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/12/08/relations-their-relatives-16
>
> I thought it might serve a purpose over the long haul to merge this discussion
> of elementary relations and/or individual relations with an earlier thread on
> relations and their relatives. The immediate task is to get clear about the
> critical relationship between relations as sets and elementary relations as
> elements of those sets. What's at stake is understanding the extensional
> aspect of relations. Beyond its theoretical importance, the extensional
> aspect of relations is the interface where relations make contact with
> empirical phenomena and ground logical theories in observational data.
>
> Well, it's later than I thought, so I'll have to break here.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 12/8/2015 11:42 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>> Jon, list,
>> thank you, Jon.
>> Your example is less complicated than mine was.
>> So the elementary relation does not determine
>> the general relation or general relative term.
>> So, both, elementary and general relation do
>> not have a token-type-connection with each other,
>> I think. So it is confusing to me, that both are
>> called "relation". In mathematics, I think, an
>> actual subset of a cartesian product is a relation.
>> This seems like secondness to me. The term "smaller
>> than" is a relative term, I guess. This seems like
>> firstness or thirdness to me, depending on whether
>> it is the reason for (ground of, quality of) an actual
>> subset, or the interpretation of this actual subset.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: 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 [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://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/12/08/relations-their-relatives-16/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/12/10/relations-their-relatives-17/
Peirce List
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17890
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17894
JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17902
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17907
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17911
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17916
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17955
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17956
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17958
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17991
Helmut, List,
I put a revision of that last example on my blog, linked above.
I amended one statement to say that “the elementary relation by
itself does not ''completely'' determine the general relation or
general relative term under which it may be considered”, since
we allow for partial determination or “determination in measure”
in this context.
The relationship between tokens and types, under one pair of terms
or another, has been pervasive in science and knowledge-oriented
philosophy since the days of Plato and Aristotle at least, since
we have knowledge of forms and generalities, not haecceities or
individuals in themselves.
There is a communication problem that arises here, because the words
“token” and “type” tend to be used differently outside Peirce studies,
often referring to objects that aren't always signs. So I have found
it less confusing to use more neutral terms, like “instance of a type”
or “element of a set”.
In that sense, we can say that (Cain, Abel) is an instance of the type B,
where B is a particular subset of all ordered pairs of biblical figures.
Regard,
Jon
On 12/9/2015 11:40 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> Helmut, List,
>
> I put a better formatted version of my last email in this blog post:
>
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/12/08/relations-their-relatives-16
>
> I thought it might serve a purpose over the long haul to merge this discussion
> of elementary relations and/or individual relations with an earlier thread on
> relations and their relatives. The immediate task is to get clear about the
> critical relationship between relations as sets and elementary relations as
> elements of those sets. What's at stake is understanding the extensional
> aspect of relations. Beyond its theoretical importance, the extensional
> aspect of relations is the interface where relations make contact with
> empirical phenomena and ground logical theories in observational data.
>
> Well, it's later than I thought, so I'll have to break here.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 12/8/2015 11:42 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>> Jon, list,
>> thank you, Jon.
>> Your example is less complicated than mine was.
>> So the elementary relation does not determine
>> the general relation or general relative term.
>> So, both, elementary and general relation do
>> not have a token-type-connection with each other,
>> I think. So it is confusing to me, that both are
>> called "relation". In mathematics, I think, an
>> actual subset of a cartesian product is a relation.
>> This seems like secondness to me. The term "smaller
>> than" is a relative term, I guess. This seems like
>> firstness or thirdness to me, depending on whether
>> it is the reason for (ground of, quality of) an actual
>> subset, or the interpretation of this actual subset.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: 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 [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 .
