Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
Dear Doctor Ericsson-Zenith, Thank you for the reply! However, unless my brain is far too fuzy, I do not find John Deely's quotation the positive internal characters of the subject in itself. Did Doctor Deely misquote? Did the quote come from elsewhere? - It is an intriguing statement possibly subtantualizing both internal and subject which, in Deely and Poinsot's terminology would mean they are foundational terminals in a Peircean Triad would it not? - Does anyone have suggestions, referrences, or information? Thank you for your consideration, Gary C. Moore P. S. If I have done anything improper please tell me. I am new to the group. From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith stevenzen...@gmail.com To: Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION FYI CP 5.469 This illustration has much more pertinence to pragmatism than appears at first sight; since my researches into the logic of relatives have shown beyond all sane doubt that in one respect combinations of concepts exhibit a remarkable analogy with chemical combinations; every concept having a strict valency. (This must be taken to mean that of several forms of expression that are logically equivalent, that one or ones whose analytical accuracy is least open to question, owing to the introduction of the relation of joint identity, follows the law of valency.) Thus, the predicate is blue is univalent, the predicate kills is bivalent (for the direct and indirect objects are, grammar aside, as much subjects as is the subject nominative); the predicate gives is trivalent, since A gives B to C, etc. Just as the valency of chemistry is an atomic character, so indecomposable concepts may be bivalent or trivalent. Indeed, definitions being scrupulously observed, it will be seen to be a truism to assert that no compound of univalent and bivalent concepts alone can be trivalent, although a compound of any concept with a trivalent concept can have at pleasure, a valency higher or lower by one than that of the former concept. Less obvious, yet demonstrable, is the fact that no indecomposable concept has a higher valency. Among my papers are actual analyses of a number greater than I care to state. They are mostly more complex than would be supposed. Thus, the relation between the four bonds of an unsymmetrical carbon atom consists of twenty-four triadic relations. Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or predicates. Firstly come firstnesses, or positive internal characters of the subject in itself; secondly come secondnesses, or brute actions of one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third subject; thirdly comes thirdnesses, or the mental or quasi-mental influence of one subject on another relatively to a third. Since the demonstration of this proposition is too stiff for the infantile logic of our time (which is rapidly awakening, however), I have preferred to state it problematically, as a surmise to be verified by observation. The little that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been entirely the fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much more than the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show. Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Gary Moore wrote: To whom it may concern, In John Deely's FOUR AGES OF UNDERSTANDING page 647 he quotes Peirce as saying the positive internal characters of the subject in itself [footnote 109 Peirce c. 1906: CP 5.469]. - I only have the two volumes of THE ESSENTIAL PEIRCE and cannot locate it. Gary C Moore P O Box 5081 Midland, Texas 79704 gottlos752...@yahoo.com - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
[peirce-l] Fw: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
- Forwarded Message - From: Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com To: Steven Ericsson-Zenith stevenzen...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:14 AM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION Thank you! I was expecting more. But it just seems to be passing phraseology. GCM From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith stevenzen...@gmail.com To: Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION It's there, second sentence of the second paragraph. Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Gary Moore wrote: Dear Doctor Ericsson-Zenith, Thank you for the reply! However, unless my brain is far too fuzy, I do not find John Deely's quotation the positive internal characters of the subject in itself. Did Doctor Deely misquote? Did the quote come from elsewhere? - It is an intriguing statement possibly subtantualizing both internal and subject which, in Deely and Poinsot's terminology would mean they are foundational terminals in a Peircean Triad would it not? - Does anyone have suggestions, referrences, or information? Thank you for your consideration, Gary C. Moore P. S. If I have done anything improper please tell me. I am new to the group. From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith stevenzen...@gmail.com To: Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION FYI CP 5.469 This illustration has much more pertinence to pragmatism than appears at first sight; since my researches into the logic of relatives have shown beyond all sane doubt that in one respect combinations of concepts exhibit a remarkable analogy with chemical combinations; every concept having a strict valency. (This must be taken to mean that of several forms of expression that are logically equivalent, that one or ones whose analytical accuracy is least open to question, owing to the introduction of the relation of joint identity, follows the law of valency.) Thus, the predicate is blue is univalent, the predicate kills is bivalent (for the direct and indirect objects are, grammar aside, as much subjects as is the subject nominative); the predicate gives is trivalent, since A gives B to C, etc. Just as the valency of chemistry is an atomic character, so indecomposable concepts may be bivalent or trivalent. Indeed, definitions being scrupulously observed, it will be seen to be a truism to assert that no compound of univalent and bivalent concepts alone can be trivalent, although a compound of any concept with a trivalent concept can have at pleasure, a valency higher or lower by one than that of the former concept. Less obvious, yet demonstrable, is the fact that no indecomposable concept has a higher valency. Among my papers are actual analyses of a number greater than I care to state. They are mostly more complex than would be supposed. Thus, the relation between the four bonds of an unsymmetrical carbon atom consists of twenty-four triadic relations. Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or predicates. Firstly come firstnesses, or positive internal characters of the subject in itself; secondly come secondnesses, or brute actions of one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third subject; thirdly comes thirdnesses, or the mental or quasi-mental influence of one subject on another relatively to a third. Since the demonstration of this proposition is too stiff for the infantile logic of our time (which is rapidly awakening, however), I have preferred to state it problematically, as a surmise to be verified by observation. The little that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been entirely the fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much more than the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show. Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Gary Moore wrote: To whom it may concern, In John Deely's FOUR AGES OF UNDERSTANDING page 647 he quotes Peirce as saying the positive internal characters of the subject in itself [footnote 109 Peirce c. 1906: CP 5.469]. - I only have the two volumes of THE ESSENTIAL PEIRCE and cannot locate it. Gary C Moore P O Box 5081 Midland, Texas 79704 gottlos752...@yahoo.com - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this
Re: [peirce-l] Fw: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
The wonders of Google,
Commens Peirce Dictionary: Thirdness, Third [as a
category]http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html:
Thirdness, Third [as a category]
(see also Firstness, Secondness, Categories)
Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or
predicates. Firstly come firstnesses, or positive internal characters of
the subject in itself; secondly come secondnesses, or brute actions of
one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third
subject; thirdly comes thirdnesses, or the mental or quasi-mental
influence of one subject on another relatively to a third. ('Pragmatism',
CP 5.469, 1907)
'via Blog
this'https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk
I didn't realize that Steven was quoting this in his most interesting post.
Cheers. S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Forwarded Message -
*From:* Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com
*To:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith stevenzen...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:14 AM
*Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
Thank you! I was expecting more. But it just seems to be passing
phraseology.
GCM
*From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith stevenzen...@gmail.com
*To:* Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:09 AM
*Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
It's there, second sentence of the second paragraph.
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science Engineering
http://iase.info
On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Gary Moore wrote:
Dear Doctor Ericsson-Zenith,
Thank you for the reply! However, unless my brain is far too fuzy, I do
not find John Deely's quotation the positive internal characters of the
subject in itself. Did Doctor Deely misquote? Did the quote come from
elsewhere?
-
It is an intriguing statement possibly subtantualizing both internal
and subject which, in Deely and Poinsot's terminology would mean they are
foundational terminals in a Peircean Triad would it not?
-
Does anyone have suggestions, referrences, or information?
Thank you for your consideration,
Gary C. Moore
P. S. If I have done anything improper please tell me. I am new to the
group.
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith stevenzen...@gmail.com
To: Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
FYI
CP 5.469 This illustration has much more pertinence to pragmatism than
appears at first sight; since my researches into the logic of relatives
have shown beyond all sane doubt that in one respect combinations of
concepts exhibit a remarkable analogy with chemical combinations; every
concept having a strict valency. (This must be taken to mean that of
several forms of expression that are logically equivalent, that one or ones
whose analytical accuracy is least open to question, owing to the
introduction of the relation of joint identity, follows the law of
valency.) Thus, the predicate is blue is univalent, the predicate kills
is bivalent (for the direct and indirect objects are, grammar aside, as
much subjects as is the subject nominative); the predicate gives is
trivalent, since A gives B to C, etc. Just as the valency of chemistry is
an atomic character, so indecomposable concepts may be bivalent or
trivalent. Indeed, definitions being scrupulously observed, it will be seen
to be a truism to assert that no compound of univalent and bivalent
concepts alone can be trivalent, although a compound of any concept with a
trivalent concept can have at pleasure, a valency higher or lower by one
than that of the former concept. Less obvious, yet demonstrable, is the
fact that no indecomposable concept has a higher valency. Among my papers
are actual analyses of a number greater than I care to state. They are
mostly more complex than would be supposed. Thus, the relation between the
four bonds of an unsymmetrical carbon atom consists of twenty-four triadic
relations.
Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or
predicates. Firstly come firstnesses, or positive internal characters of
the subject in itself; secondly come secondnesses, or brute actions of
one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third
subject; thirdly comes thirdnesses, or the mental or quasi-mental
influence of one subject on another relatively to a third. Since the
demonstration of this proposition is too stiff for the infantile logic of
our time (which is rapidly awakening, however), I have preferred to state
it problematically, as a
