Robert, All ... Re: https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00054.html
As it happens, I've been working on a comment about your first point below but I'll post it back on your original thread, when and if I manage to put it in respectable shape, since I'm finding this welter of indirections too distracting. Just by way of a hint for now, the issue turns on whether we take "involves" or "presupposes" to be a dyadic relation and a transitive one at that, as we would if we pass from "3 involves 2" and "2 involves 1" to the conclusion that "3 involves 1". That may be true for some concepts of involution or presupposition but I think the operative relation in this case is a thoroughly irreducible triadic relation, one whose properties do not reduce to the composition of two dyadic relations. Regards, Jon On 5/6/2020 7:09 AM, robert marty wrote:> Gary, Jon Alan, Jon Awbrey, List > > *1 *-First I note that the formulation "3ns involves 2ns, which involves > 1ns" is very dangerous [because] it forgets that 2ns has its autonomy and > 1ns too. If you look at the podium on remains in the inner cylinder. > It seems to me that Peirce's reproach to Hegel is: > > "*He has usually overlooked external Secondness, altogether. In other > words, he has committed the trifling oversight of forgetting that there is > a real world with real actions and reactions. **Rather a serious oversight > that".* > > It is therefore important to prefer"3ns involves 2ns and 1ns, while 2ns > involves 1ns" which preserves the autonomy of the Peircian categories so > as not to encourage the idea of a possible peircean hegelianism. " >
----------------------------- 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 .
