On 11/21/2017 4:08 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
CSP’s strange insistence on the logical perplexity of repeating words in sentences (or on sheets of assertion) has long puzzled me.
Are you referring to the following passage? From 2.13:
it seems reasonable that any decidedly marked point of the sheet should stand for a single individual; so that • should mean “something exists.” We cannot make this • • to mean that two things exist
This fact follows from his rule of iteration: You can copy any graph instance without asserting anything new. If you want to say that two things exist, you have to say explicitly that the two dots do not refer to the same thing. That issue will come up later.
Is the metaphor of “trustee” in the previous sentence a potent clue?
No. Peirce had just mentioned an example about owing money, and he mentioned the word 'trustee' as a legal term in Massachusetts. From the following example, I think he meant that C could request that C pay B the money that C owes to A. From 2.13
saying for example that if A owes B money and C owes A money, then B may “trustee” C for the debt (as you say in Massachusetts),
John
----------------------------- 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 .
