Jerry C, Stephen, list:
When you ask such questions: “If triadic thinking is infinitely superior to binary thinking. should tetradic thinking be infinitely superior to “triadic" thinking. and should pentadic thinking be infinitely superior to tetradic thinking?” in response to Stephen’s assertion that: “more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior to binary thinking. Without it we perish. This is NOT an academic matter,” you are taking the problem to the clowns. That is, the preamble for why three and not two or four or five or myriad creatures have been addressed many times over. That is, you are rubbing out the work of great men who have urged a specific course of action. You do this, in spite of your clear awareness of Peirce’s work and why three (cf., Letter to Lady Welby). Therefore, I must think that you do this not out of immorality but because you want to bring attention to a particular matter. So, why three? Why not because there are three parts to the soul? Why not because a syllogism requires three and only three terms? Why not because an enthymeme utilizes the structure of syllogism and its quality is judged by the artfulness by which an audience is engaged to fill in the incompleteness? Or, rather simply, why not CP 5.189? “The comparison should be with famous men; that will strengthen your case; it is a noble thing to surpass men who are themselves great. So are the things that continue even after death; those which are always attended by honour; those which are exceptional; and those which are possessed by one person alone-these last are more readily remembered than others.” ~Aristotle, *Rhetoric* “But I seem to myself to be the sole depository at present of the completely developed system, which all hangs together and cannot receive any proper presentation in fragments.” ~ Peirce, *Letter to William James* Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > Steven, List : > > On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the > triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior > to binary thinking. Without it we perish. This is NOT an academic matter. > > > I would contradict your conclusion. > > My logic is relatively simple: > > Transitivity of meaning is intrinsic to the ordering of the terms. > If triadic thinking is > > infinitely superior to binary thinking. > > > should tetradic thinking be > > infinitely superior to “triadic" thinking. > > and should pentadic thinking be > > infinitely superior to tetradic thinking?. > > > Ben has explored the tetradic pathways of thinking. > I have found it enormously useful to explore the pentadic pathways of > thinking. > And, occacionally septiadic (7) pathways of speculation. > > The deeper question is, > When is the fullness of the thought expressible in logic terms such that > inference can be made? > > From your perspectives, > do any thoughts exist that can not be expressed in three terms? > > The question is, did CSP basically argue that any logical conclusion > required three sentences? > Or, did CSP basically argue that any logical conclusion required three > connected terms? > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
