Hi all, How about entering into inquiry of a situation, a particular situation. That situation will have a set of communications associated with it. But that situation is only one situation of many possible situations. And what we want to know is how it will play out in the next instance. That would involve knowing the generals of the situation. The general of the situation is to know what would be expected in the next situation The next situation is not known. It may be a next situation that copies the present situation perfectly. That would be an average with no remainder. But most likely, that next situation will be not exactly the same, that is, with remainder. Therefore, what we seek is to know an imperfect general, some "average". But there is no consonance between the "average" and the next situation. So, to know the general is also to know the particular; and the general is not the particular but is defined by particulars. It's not an average but has quality of average.
hth, Jerry R On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > I understand it like "mean", "average" and "normal" are necessary traits > of any predicate, and there is no predicate but within communication, and > "mean" is the common aspect of the communicated subject, "average" is the > agreed-about aspect of it, and "normal" is the standardising aspect. > > > Sorry for the delay answering. Got busy. > > While I get the idea your after, I’m not sure it’s really that correct. If > we’re talking about predicates (rhemes?) then there’s a set of > communications (broadly defined) tied to it. (Both in terms of past and > future) There’s a certain shape to those communications that I think > exceeds terms like average or mode. Which is why I originally objected to > the term. Average often reduces something fairly complex to a single value > conceptually which is misleading. > > That said, as I argued, I still think there’s something to the word. Just > not in any statistical sense ultimately even by analogy. > > To demonstrate what I’m talking about think a graph like the following. > (Obviously meant just as analogy - obviously communication of a predicate > can’t be reduced to a graph like this) > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
