Gary R., List: Are you referring to this suggestion of mine regarding CP 5.189 in the brief spin-off thread on "Association of Categories"?
- The surprising fact, C, is observed - Secondness. - But if A were true, C would be a matter of course - Thirdness. - Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true - Firstness. As discussed previously, this is propositional logic, rather than predicate logic; so it does not directly correspond to result/rule/case. To get there--i.e., to formulate what Peirce elsewhere called a "minor indirect probable syllogism"--we have to express the surprising fact C (result) and the explanatory hypothesis A (case) as propositions, and replace the if-then statement with the *reason *why C follows necessarily from A (rule). (By the way, I now *suspect *that this additional proposition is the "missing B" in CP 5.189, whose absence is *surprising* to some; i.e., A = case, B = rule, C = result.) However, note that if my category assignments are correct, then--contrary to your remarks below, but consistent with our exchange in the other thread--this order (result/rule/case) is the one that corresponds to the vector of aspiration, and the reverse order (case/rule/result) is the one that matches the vector of process. Another potential wrinkle here is the ongoing controversy over whether necessary reasoning is more properly associated with Thirdness (as you and I believe) or Secondness (as others have argued). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correction: > > In my last post I wrote "Your order here (result/rule/ergo case) was also > recently suggested by Jon S as a possible 'inversion' of rule/case/result > for abduction." > > But, now I recall that Jon S gave the opposite order, ie. case/rule/result > and remarked that it is the reverse of the categorial pattern for inquiry > (which is correct). In my categorial vector theory I refer to the order, > case/rule/result, as the vector of aspiration, and the one Ben gave, of > result/rule/case as the vector of process (I often note that both inquiry > and biological evolution follow this order according to Peirce). Adding > these 2 to the 3 Peirce gives in the bean example, we have 5 of the 6 > possible categorial vectors, the remaining one being Hegel's dialectical > order. This is not to say that I'm at all sure that all these five > definitely represent inference patterns. GR >
----------------------------- 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 .
