Jerry, List,
I guess, that the union of units that unifies the unity is something different from a part-whole-affair, that is something that can sufficiently be depicted with a Venn-diagram. I think your saying of union of units fits better to real nature or phenomena than the part-whole-concept. So I guess it might be better not to talk with the term "part" anymore, but replace it with "unit"? Maybe "part" suggests, that there is a "whole", which is nothing more than its parts, but "unit" is a term still freeer of such a presupposition?
Best,
Helmut
22. Dezember 2017 um 19:47 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
wrote:
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
wrote:
List, Helmut:
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
On Dec 22, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:I can imagine, that there are simple relations that donot have parts, but there are also composed relations, that consist of other relations, which are their parts (given that I may use the term "parts" in this functional way, but maybe not, this still has got to be discussed, or is already,
My response is very simple rhetoric.
A relation is a unity in the sense of my earlier assertion, some months ago:
"The union of units unifies the unity."
I concurred with John’s assertion because a questioner may be familiar with the logic of the meaning the term “relation” in only one symbol system. (Monadic symbol users appear to prevail on this list.)
The definition of part-whole relations varies between disciplines - human relations, biological relations, chemical relations, physical relations, mathematical relations, etc.
The rhetoric of the meaning of the assertion:
"The union of units unifies the unity.”
depends on the capacity of the questioner to interpret the rhetoric in which I frame the meaning of “union” and the corresponding relational logic of “units.”
More precisely, in preparing my answer to the questioner, I must decide to either include or exclude the concept of emergence between logical symbol systems. In other words, the rhetoric of music relations differs from the rhetoric of chemical relations even though both musical and chemical relations can be illustrated with associations of the union of number units and compositions of parts to form wholes (unities.)
See CP 1:288-299 for relevant discussion of valencies relevant to symbols. CSP fully recognized that the mathematization of science is a deep metaphysical challenge, not merely a rhetorical flourish asserting that the valencies loosely associated with the Laws of Physics suffice to explain all of science. He held that the example of “handedness” as chiral molecules sufficed for this purpose.(EP2:159)
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
