Jerry R.: My concern was the nature of infinity relative to the nature of theology.
Is it possible you mis-undeerstood my intended meaning? Cheers jerry c > On Feb 16, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Steven, List : > >> On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] <mailto:[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://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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
