Jim, List On Aug 5, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
> Jerry. > > i diasagree. Can you articulate what it is that you disagree with? (It was a detailed reply!) > I think the rhema represents the very possibility of connecting an object to > the icon and acheiving a particular proposition. Of course, that is purpose and intent of the definition, is it not? What is it you are seeking to express? > > 1) being of the nature of H ICON > > 2) Hx ( or F...... to be completed) RHEME > > 3) Ha PROPOSITION (completed through the indice) > > 4) ExFx Argument These four phrases are unintelligible to me. The presuppositions and meanings are not decipherable in the language of CSP. > > Where does the medad enter? Term logic requires terms! The Peircian medad enters in every sentence of every proposition, does it not? How could it possibly be otherwise? > In one sense, it can only be the collection of properties of H, or the > immediate object 'a.' Semantically, I have merely moved from "This is > hydrogen" to "There is hydrogen" So, I guess the ens a se would just be H. What are you talking about? Certainly not "ens a se". > The object 'a' becomes merely a tool for reference. It strikes me that it > doesn't matter that H is, or where it is. ???? The chemical reference system is the table of chemical elements; the ordering of the chemical elements is a consequence of physical measurements and laws. > > In another sense, I have to separate those properties from the putative > object for the sake of cognition. But that is just conceptual. The experience > of H would be like "heat lightening." > unthought so long as it remained that way. Well, that is close to an example > that Peirce uses for a medad. For the relations between medad, icons and rhema, see 3.421, MS 410 (p. 11-13) cited by Don Roberts on page 23-24 and 3. 469 on the icons relating indexes to a chemical medad. > > Jim W > The goal is to relate CSP's logic of mathematics /chemistry to the logic of mathematics / chemistry as it is used today, roughly 150 years later. CSP makes a direct comparison to the two logics in W6:37. Letter to Noble on the Nature of Reasoning (1887) He often cites chemical reasoning as examples of his logical processes. Jim, your comments seem to neglect this aspect of the radix (roots) of CSP's logic and realism / pragmatism. I will be away from my desk (and CSP texts) for the next five weeks. Cheers Jerry > > > > As a universal system of logic, the trichotomy omits the logical distinction > between ens a se and ens ab alio. > The metaphysical importance of ens a se and ens ab alio is most obvious in > the reasoning that links the concept of "icon" to the concept of "rhema" in > relation to medads and chemical radicals (this is central to his theory of > graphs.) > > From: jerry_lr_chand...@me.com > Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:13:49 -0500 > CC: jimwillgo...@msn.com > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A metaphysical omission of the trichotomy: ens a se > and ens ab alio > > List, Jim: > > (At the bottom of this post are several relevant citations, all from the > Commens dictionary.) > > Jim writes: > However, the ens a se would not be metaphysically necessary! > > In regard to this assertion, my view of the concept of metaphysics is simple > - it excludes the term "necessary". Metaphysical beliefs express beliefs > about the universality of beliefs, so I have no response to your assertion. > > Thus, an atom, as you suggest, might possess its 'being-in/from-itself' but > fail to do so necessarily. > > Today, from the perspective of 21st Century science, the concept of a > chemical atom is based a huge collection of facts and measurements. (I listed > five components of them in my post to Ben.) > > Conceptually, the concept of an atom is sort of a rhetorical conundrum from > an algebraic perspective of the logical terms independent, interdependent and > dependent, such as they may be used in the sense of everyday linear algebra. > Independent as a physical object as in the sense of thermodynamics of > perfect gases. > Interdependent as a consequence of the physical structure of every atom as a > nucleus and electron(s). > Dependent from the physical recognition of the atomic table of elements, > which demands that all atomic numbers are ordered as a set of relatives. > > Note that the CSP concept of teridentity is necessary for the concept of the > interdependent of the physical structure. Physically, in this terminology, > the science of quantum mechanics is a consequence of the teridentity of atoms. > > From Suarez: > 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. > > As an atom is, physically, a very very small object, the question of > finiteness is a matter of fact and corresponds with the algebraic notion of > independent mathematical object, as in thermodynamics. > > But, from a different scientific perspective, that of quantum mechanics, the > interdependence is necessarily and Suarez division into ens a se and ens ab > alio is necessary to relate the parts of whole. The terminology of mereology > becomes necessary for quantum logic and quantum calculations. > > In the third scientific perspective, that of algebraic dependency, the atoms > within a molecule are dependent on one another and this dependency is a fact > of measurement. > > As a universal system of logic, the trichotomy omits the logical distinction > between ens a se and ens ab alio. > The metaphysical importance of ens a se and ens ab alio is most obvious in > the reasoning that links the concept of "icon" to the concept of "rhema" in > relation to medads and chemical radicals (this is central to his theory of > graphs.) > > It is important to note that quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and molecules > (such a DNA) satisfy CSP distinction between between reasoning and the > purpose of logic, 4.476 and 4.477. > > 4.476. The purpose of reasoning is to proceed from a recognition of a truth > we already know to the knowledge of a novel truth. ... > 4.477 The purpose of logic is attained by any single passage from a premiss > to a conclusion as long as it does not happen at once that the premiss is > true while the conclusion is false. > > > Finally, I would iterate once again the distinction between the trichotomy as > a universal system of logic (to be contrasted with Boole, de Morgan, Leibniz, > Aristotle, and even the modern notion of hybrid logic) and the ten classes > of signs, (see definition below.) > > Cheers > > Jerry > > (The radix of this post lies in the nature of the binding of metaphysics to > the logic of mathematics and physics; I have attempted to make my thoughts > clear but probably have not succeeded for many (if not most readers) of this > list serve. > In order to be concise, I have omitted any discussion of the logic > centralizer of the trichotomy, the economy of relations.) > > > > Terms from Commens Dictionary: > > Every class is constituted and held together by a concept or idea expressed > in its definition. > > CSP 7.537 > It is impossible to analyze a triadic relation, or fact about three objects, > into dyadic relations; for the very idea of a compound supposes two parts, at > least, and a whole, or three objects, at least, in all. > > …the concept of teridentity is not mere identity. It is identity and > identity, but this “and” is a distinct concept, and is precisely that of > teridentity. > > > Quality is the monadic element of the world. Anything whatever, however > complex and heterogeneous, has its quality sui generis, its possibility of > sensation, would our senses only respond to it. > > > A Sinsign (where the syllable sin is taken as meaning “being only once,” as > in single, simple, Latin semel, etc.) is an actual existent thing or event > which is a sign. It can only be so through its qualities; so that it involves > a qualisign, or rather, several qualisigns. But these qualisigns are of a > peculiar kind and only form a sign through being actually embodied. > A Collection is anything whose being consists in the existence of whatever > there may exist that has any one quality; and if such thing or things exist, > the collection is a single thing whose existence consists in the existence of > all those very things. > According to this definition, a collection is an ens rationis. [—] A > collection has essence and may have existence. > > > On Aug 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Jim Willgoose wrote: > > Jerry, > > There is a suggestion that Suarez holds that with finite being you cannot > really separate their being (existence) and essence. However, the ens a se > would not be metaphysically necessary! Thus, an atom, as you suggest, might > possess its 'being-in/from-itself' but fail to do so necessarily. I just > don't think that a distinction within semiotics/logic has anything to say > about this. > > Jim W > > From: jimwillgo...@msn.com > To: jerry_lr_chand...@me.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 17:57:28 -0500 > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] A metaphysical omission of the trichotomy: ens a se > and ens ab alio > > 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 tol...@list.iupui.edu > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More > athttp://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 .
