Jeff, List: I thought that our objective in this thread was--at least eventually--to determine whether and how Peirce's mathematical and phenomenological discussions in the last RLT lecture might shed light on the subsequent metaphysical discussion (including the blackboard diagram), and especially the concept of "super-order" that he introduced in CP 6.490, or vice-versa. Did I misunderstand? So far, I am not seeing how your examination of ordered vs. unordered dyadic relations fits into that train of thought.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Jon S, List, > > For the sake of clarity, let me point out that the interpretative > hypothesis I have been exploring is quite limited. The claim is that, on > its face, it appears that some dyadic relations are not, in themselves, > ordered. This is brought out in those that are classified as accidental and > unordered (both materially and formally). I was extending the claim to > degenerate triadic relations based on the general tenor of his remarks > about such degenerate relations in "The Logic of Mathematics, an attempt..." > > The points you are making about different sorts of collections and other > kinds of groupings (including those that are based on some shared negative > character) all seem to involve genuine triadic relations that apply to the > collection as a whole. As far as I can tell, all such genuine triads > essentially involve ordered relations. > > So, to make the point clearer, a set consisting of members that are two > distinct dots on a page is ordered if there is some general characteristic > that applies to the set as a whole. Having said that, it does not follow > that every sort of degenerate dyadic relation or degenerate triadic > relation that holds between two dots is an ordered relation. The general > property that makes the set the kind of thing that it is necessarily > involves a genuine triadic relation. That is what is involved in all such > generalities. > > You seem to be claiming that every relation, regardless of how degenerate > it may be, must involve some sort of order--otherwise the relation would > not be intelligible. If this is your claim, you may be right, but I'm > trying to explore a different line of interpretation. > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354
----------------------------- 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 .
