Hello Jon, If you have links to the earlier discussions of the distinction between "triadicities" and "trichotomies", I'd like to take a look. In addition to being interested in distinction you are making, I'd like to read more about how you are thinking about the projection of the triadic relations onto the mutually exclusive and exhaustive partitions of a domain.
In his monograph <Reading Peirce Reading>, Richard Smyth makes much of the conceptions of the restrictions and limitations that apply to a given domain of inquiry. I'd like to see how your account of the partitions of the domain compares to his reconstruction of some arguments Peirce develops in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear." Thanks, Jeff Jeff Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy NAU (o) 523-8354 ________________________________________ From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 7:44 PM To: Peirce List 1 Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions • Selected Passages Thread: JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14286 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14290 GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14313 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14350 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14351 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14352 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14359 GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14383 JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14388 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14394 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14409 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14422 JLRC: These questions penetrate to the heart of >>>>> CSP's rhetorical stance as illustrated by >>>>> the triadic triad: >>>>> >>>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign, >>>>> icon, index, symbol, >>>>> rhema, dicisign, argument. >>>>> >>>>> If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences, >>>>> is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different >>>>> situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have >>>>> more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?) Jerry, List, There is something that needs to be said about the proper use of categories and classifications in Peirce's work and what I regard as their mis-use in a great number of contemporary discussions. One of the first issues I can remember pointing out when I joined the Peirce List was the distinction between "triadicities" and "trichotomies", the first relating to properties of triadic relations and the second relating to mutually exclusive and exhaustive partitions of a domain. Although one can form what is known in mathematics as a "projective" relation between the two structures, the trichotomies remain pale reflections of the richer triadicities, distorting and reducing much of their information. Trying to comprehend triadic relations by means of their projective trichotomies is a project ultimately doomed to fail. To be continued ... Jon Jon Awbrey wrote: > Jerry, List, > > Re: "CSP's rhetorical stance" > > Somewhere in the classical part of my education I picked up the notion > that rhetoric is an inquiry into the forms of argument, discussion, and > reasoning that "consider the audience", in other words, that take the > nurture and the nature of the interpreter into account. > > But considering the interpreter, putting the interpreter back into the > process of interpretation, is the very thing that sets Peirce's account > of information, inquiry, logic, signs, and pragmatic thinking in general > apart from the run of logical systems that had been developed to any > significant technical degree up to his time and even long after it. > > The Horror! The Horror! A Spectre Is Haunting Logic — The Spectre Of > Relativism! > > Well, no, not really, but you'd think it from the ter-roar that > dyad-in-the-wool flatlanders raise at the very idea of moving > logic into the 3rd dimension. > > To be continued ... > > Jon > > > Jon Awbrey wrote: >> Jerry, List, >> >> If we understand what Peirce is talking about then it's usually fairly >> easy to understand what he says, but it's almost impossible to >> understand what he says if we do not understand what he's talking about. >> >> That is not a paraphrase of the Meno paradox — >> it is only a clue to the role of collateral >> acquaintance in escaping the Meno paradox. >> >> I'll try address your questions more directly tomorrow ... >> >> Jon >> >>> Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >>>> List, Jon: >>>> >>>> These are excellent questions! What do you think about these >>>> extentions? >>>> >>>> These questions penetrate to the heart of CSP's rhetorical stance as >>>> illustrated by the triadic triad: >>>> >>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign, >>>> icon, index, symbol, >>>> rhema, dicisign, argument. >>>> >>>> If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences, >>>> is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different >>>> situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have >>>> more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?) >>>> >>>> Further questions about the purity of thought arise readily... >>>> >>>> In particular, does the concept of a decisign emerge because of the >>>> differences between pure and impure indices, such as the indices >>>> between chains and branched chains of inferences? >>>> >>>> On a technical note, often CSP's chains of inferences appear to start >>>> with Lavoisier's principle of purity which is necessary for all exact >>>> (pragmatic) logic of chemistry and molecular biology? >>>> >>>> Does Lavoisier's principle of purity have any influence on CSP's use >>>> of the terms, Pure Icon and Pure Index? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 .
