Jon,
If it’s critically important to understand the difference between “relations proper” and “elementary relations”, can you tell us what that difference is, or point us to an explanation? These are not terms that Peirce uses, so how can the rest of us tell whether we understand them or not? Being unfamiliar with those terms does not indicate lack of understanding of the important concepts they signify. Gary f. From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 27-Nov-15 11:16 Gary, all, It is critically important to understand the difference between relations proper and elementary relations, also known as tuples. It is clear from his first work on the logic of relative terms that Peirce understood this difference and its significance. Often in his later work he will speak of classifying relations when he is really classifying types of elementary relations or single tuples. The reason for this is fairly easy to understand. Relations proper are a vastly more complex domain to classify than types of tuples so one naturally reverts to the simpler setting as a way of getting a foothold on the complexity of the general case. But nothing but confusion will reign from propagating the categorical error. Regards, Jon
----------------------------- 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 .
