List, Jim: Jim, you seemed to have missed the point of my post.
Please point me toward a passage from CSP that you think indicates the categorical distinction between > ens a se and ens ab alio, as Latin phrases in the since of Suarez. I made no mention of "existential relations." Where does this thought come from? This sentence " I doubt that a discussion of medads (or satsified, 0-place relations) or rhemes/propositions solely within the logic will help, since it is a modern epistemological (phenomenological) approach that is decisive for existence." makes no sense to me. > Cheaply put, experience and science replaces theology with respect to ens ab > alio. > Huh? I made no mention of theology. Why do you introduce it? Does the concept of a whole and parts of whole organized into a collection of propositions influence your views of theology? If so, how? Perhaps you are opposed to mereology for a specific reason? The central issue, at least to me, is how does the trichotomy relate to diagrams and other forms of generating a coherent set of propositions such that an argument is formed? Cheers Jerry On Aug 2, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote: > Hello Jerry. > > How can you say that P ignores the distinction? There is a lot of > distinguishing between being-in-itself and existential relations. I doubt > that a discussion of medads (or satsified, 0-place relations) or > rhemes/propositions solely within the logic will help, since it is a modern > epistemological (phenomenological) approach that is decisive for existence. > Cheaply put, experience and science replaces theology with respect to ens ab > alio. > > Jim W > > From: jerry_lr_chand...@me.com > Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:36:06 -0500 > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] A metaphysical omission of the trichotomy: ens a se and > ens ab alio > > List: > > CSP proposed the trichotomy as a universal logic, such that the rhetorical > terms can be used to generate an argument which is decidable - that is, is > either true or false. The binding of the 8 rhetorical terms that serve to > ground the propositions of the trichotomy to one-another is unclear (to me, > at least). Although, the rhetoric is somehow related his view of the > incompleteness of the blanks of a sentence and filling those blanks with > terms such the meaning of the medad is a proposition. (This notion of a > completed medad can (and should) be contrasted with the Aristotelian chaining > of sorites, the chaining of chemical elements into compounds and the > concatenation of variables in linear algebra by presupposing a common > Cartesian axis of representation. And, of course, the corresponding diagrams > of logical objects.) > > This background of CSP's attempt to construct a universal form for > argumentation ignores the distinctions between > ens a se and ens ab alio, metaphysical terms of the influential philosopher > Suarez, 1548-1617. > > Chemical argumentation, which certainly is a part of universal argumentation, > distinguishes between ens a se and ens ab alio at the fundamental level of > the meaning of an atom. The sin-sign of an atom necessarily represents a > name that represents the predicates of the form. In this respect, the index > of the sinsign is a single unit, it is being that is from itself, that is, > ens a se. > > Chemical argumentation is extended from atoms to molecules. The sinsign of a > molecule necessarily represents a compound of atoms. The number of atoms in > a molecule is indexed on the elements present in the entity. In this respect, > the index must be complete with respect to the parts of the whole, the atomic > units that give form to the molecule. That is, an index of the sinsign must > be based on ens ab alio, being that is from others. > > The ordering of concepts from ens a se to ens ab alio is the basis of the > logical conjunction of material inference that form icons. CSP then argues > these material inferences are components of the medad and beget the > contribution of the rhema to the universal argument. > > While a sinsign may have many indices, the ens a se to ens ab alio is > essential to forming propositions related to CSP's notion of medads within > the trichotomy. > > This suggests we need to re-think the ordering of concepts that are implicit > to the terminology of the trichotomy. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > Suárez made an important investigation of being, its properties and division > in Disputationes Metaphysicae (1597), which influenced the further > development of theology within Catholicism. In the second part of the book, > disputations 28-53, Suárez fixes the distinction between ens infinitum (God) > and ens finitum (created beings). The first division of being is that between > ens infinitum and ens finitum. Instead of dividing being into infinite and > finite, it can also be divided into ens a seand ens ab alio, i.e., being that > is from itself and being that is from another. A second distinction > corresponding to this one:ens necessarium and ens contingens, i.e., necessary > being and contingent being. Still another formulation of the distinction is > between ens per essentiam and ens per participationem, i.e., being that > exists by reason of its essence and being that exists only by participation > in a being that exists on its own (eigentlich). A further distinction is > between ens increatum and ens creatum, i.e., uncreated being and created, or > creaturely, being. A final distinction is between being asactus purus and > being as ens potentiale, i.e., being as pure actuality and being as potential > being. Suárez decided in favor of the first classification of the being into > ens infinitum and ens finitum as the most fundamental, in connection with > which he accords the other classifications their due. In the last disputation > 54 Suárez deals with entia rationis (beings of reason), which are impossible > intentional objects, i.e. objects that are created by our minds but cannot > exist in actual reality.[7] > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
