Gary,
I am feeling quite dull at the moment about all this, I have lost tracks, what remains is the idea, that the meaning of the term "is" might be something that can be symbolized with EGs, though by negations only, but why not, and that EGs (or at least their non-textual symbols like cuts and
Helmut, Gary f. Jeff, list,
I have found at least some of the parts/whole, classification/composition
discussion not quite to the point of Peirce'comments in this section of
Lowell 3. Gary f's formulation today was, however, helpful for me in
sorting at least some of this out.
Gf: I don’t see a
Continuing from Lowell Lecture 3.7,
https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-464-465-1903-low
ell-lecture-iii-3rd-draught/display/13906 :
. while Secondness is a fact of complexity, it is not a compound of two
facts. It is a single fact about two objects. Similar remarks
Peircers,
I forgot about this more basic article on Relations (of finite arity) that
did at one time exist at Wikipedia, though I haven't checked back lately.
Pretty much the same version can be found at the English Wikiversity.
• Relations
•
Supplement:
Kirsti, All, to be frank, I think I have lost the overview about this whole topic a bit. I was thinking, that classification "is a kind of" and composition "is a part of" were two completely different affairs. But on the other hand one can say instead of "is a kind of": "is a
Peircers,
Here's a few links to basic info on the logic of relatives,
sign relations, triadic relations, and relations in general.
• Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives
• Relation Theory
