Helmut, List: > On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am not so sure, if thirdness is about any triadic relation. The categories > in Peirces "new list" of them are quality, relation, representation. Maybe > "representation" is a very special kind of triadic relation. A simple triadic > or n-adic relation, I think, belongs to secondness, and has only two modes, > the quality, eg. function or caprice (intension), and the resulting set of > tuples (extension). Example: The triadic function "x_1 + x_2 = x_3", with the > three sets X_1, X_2, X_3 not being classes of any kind, at least not of the > special kind (whatever that is), that would allow representation, and make it > having to do with the third category.
>From your perspective, how important is it parse the distinctions among >philosophical terms that express the concept of “trine” or “three-fold” or >“trinity”? (I select these words because they all express the count of verbal >objects without using CSP’s favorite word-objects to express analogous or >similar notions of the count of an integer.) Jon’s post cite’s 3.363 with respect to classes of LOGICAL TERMS, namely: > "logical terms are of three grand classes.” In other words, in this early phase of his writings, CSP was focused on the sorts or kinds of logical terms. To quote 3.363, "The first embraces those whose logical form involves only the conception of quality, and which therefore represent a thing simply as “a ——”. “ "The second class embraces terms whose logical form involves the conception of relation, and which require the addition of another term to complete the denotation.” "The third class embraces terms whose logical form involves the conception of bringing things into relation, and which require the addition of more than one term to complete the denotation.” The grammatical examples of the classes of terms of 3.363 are: 1. ...for example, as horse, tree, or man. 2. … father of, lover of, or servant of. 3. ...giver of —— to ——, or buyer of —— for —— from —— Note that the first class of terms are simple nouns. Note that the second class of terms are genitive cases of nouns. Note that the third class of terms includes multiple nouns, multiple syncategormatic terms As classes of terms, these examples do not include any hint of propositions or conclusions. One could, perhaps, say that these examples are antecedents to propositions or syllogisms or partial assertions… Helmut, does this evaluation of CSP 3.363 does not relate to triadicity or triadic relations or triadicity or trichotomy or firstness, secondness or thirdness? Does the logical term, “triadic relations” implicitly or intentionally imply three “valences"? How would it relate to last of the examples listed above? It seems to me that CSP is drawing a sharp distinction of his thinking from the classification of terms used in logica moderna - significatio, suppositio, and related properties of terms such as copulation, appellation, implication, restriction and distribution. 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 .
