Jeff, List:
JD: On my interpretation of the text, the law of inertia functions as the
third correlate in the triadic relation.
Are there any passages in Peirce's writings where he *explicitly *presents
a triadic relation that has a law as one of its correlates?
JD: We can analyze the
@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations
Jeff, List:
JD: I take the expression of the conditional to involve a genuinely triadic
relation because there is a law that governs the relation.
What is the warrant for taking every relation that is governed by a law to be
ge
Jeff, List:
JD: I take the expression of the conditional to involve a genuinely
triadic relation because there is a law that governs the relation.
What is the warrant for taking *every *relation that is governed by a law
to be *genuinely triadic* on that sole basis? On the contrary, most (if
Jeff, Mike, and Jon,
Mathematics is diagrammatic reasoning, and EGs are a version of
logic that uses a more flexible and versatile system of diagrams
than Peirce's algebra of 1885 or any algebra since then.
But the diagrams are fundamental. Any words used to describe
the diagrams are useful
On 5/11/2019 10:22 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
JD: I take the EGs to be topological in character. As a
formal system, they are based on the notion of relations of
composition and transformation that hold between areas on a sheet of
assertion that is, itself, continuous. Various
Jon S, List,
JD: In the Prolegomena, Peirce uses the modal tincture of Fur as a means of
expressing intentions in the gamma system. The pattern of ermine (or the color
yellow), is used to represent iconically that the area shaded expresses an
intention on the part of the agent (see Don
> (o) 928 523-8354
>
> ------
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2019 6:02 PM
> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations
>
> John, List:
>
> JFS: To clarify these issues, s
Jeff, List:
JD: Insofar as there is a mental component involved in each, both are
genuinely triadic in their character because the existential facts are now
considered to be governed by general habits of thought.
In the quoted passage (CP 8.331; 1904 Oct 12), Peirce did not say that
having a
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 6:02 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations
John, List:
JFS: To clarify
John, List:
JFS: To clarify these issues, search CP for every occurrence of "A gives
B".
I did exactly that last night, and what I found has influenced my responses
accordingly.
CSP; ... every dyad by a particularization evolves a dyadic triad. Thus, A
murders B is a generalization of A
Jeff, List:
JD: In the Prolegomena, Peirce uses the modal tincture of Fur as a means
of expressing intentions in the gamma system. The pattern of ermine (or the
color yellow), is used to represent iconically that the area shaded
expresses an intention on the part of the agent (see Don Roberts,
John S, Jon S, List,
JohnS: To clarify these issues, search CP for every occurrence of
"A gives B".
Jeff D: Here is one passage that is particularly germane to the question at
hand. When Peirce claims that giving is a genuinely triadic relation, I take
note of the fact that in the "Logic of
Jeff and Jon,
To clarify these issues, search CP for every occurrence of
"A gives B". Peirce states the issues in different ways,
but the following example illustrates the general principle:
A triad may be explicated into a triadic tetrad. Thus, A gives B
to C becomes A makes the covenant D
Jon S, List,
JD: In order to interpret "μ is the surrender by A of B" and "ν is the
acquisition by A of D" as triadic and not merely dyadic relations, my hunch is
that he is considering these actions as intentional in character.
JS: Maybe, but then how would you restate them as explicitly
Jeff, List:
JD: My strategy for interpreting these passages is to take Peirce at his
word when he refers to the triadic relations that are involved.
Normally I would do likewise, which is why I find them so problematic.
JD: In order to interpret "μ is the surrender by A of B" and "ν is the
t of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 6:40 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations
Jeff, List:
That passage by Peirce is quite a head-scratcher.
Jeff, List:
That passage by Peirce is quite a head-scratcher. For one thing, the
relations of surrendering and acquiring are clearly *dyadic*, rather than
triadic. For another, it seems obvious that just as any triadic relation
involves *exactly three* dyadic relations, likewise any tetradic
List,
In a draft of a 1905 letter to Lady Welby, Peirce analyzes the tetradic
relationship of A gives up B to C in exchange for D (Semiotic and Significs,
190). I am interested in his remarks about the exchange of goods for the sake
of better understanding his account of the relations that
18 matches
Mail list logo
