Gary, all, I used the phrase “relations proper” to emphasize that I was speaking of relations in the strict sense of the word, not in any looser sense. I have been reading Peirce for almost 50 years now and I can't always recall where I read a particular usage. In the 1970s I spent a couple of years poring through the microfilm edition of his Nachlass and read a lot of still unpublished material that is not available to me now. But there is no doubt from the very concrete notations and examples that he used in his early notes and papers that he was talking about the formal objects that are variously called elementary relations, elements of relations, individual relations, or ordered tuples.
I did, however, more recently discuss a number of selections from Peirce's 1880 Algebra of Logic that dealt with the logic of relatives, so I can say for a certainly that he was calling these objects or the terms that denote them by the name of “individual relatives”. See the excerpts and discussion in the following series of blog posts. http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/01/30/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-preliminaries/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/01/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-1/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/03/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-2/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/11/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-3/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/12/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-4/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/15/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-5/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/16/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-6/ And especially the series of comments on Selection 7. http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/28/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-7/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/13/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-1/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/19/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-2/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/23/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-3/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/24/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-4/ http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/01/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-5/ Regards, Jon On 11/27/2015 12:42 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
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
-- 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 .
