Steven, List : > On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the > triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior to > binary thinking. Without it we perish. This is NOT an academic matter.
I would contradict your conclusion. My logic is relatively simple: Transitivity of meaning is intrinsic to the ordering of the terms. If triadic thinking is > infinitely superior to binary thinking. should tetradic thinking be > infinitely superior to “triadic" thinking. and should pentadic thinking be > infinitely superior to tetradic thinking?. Ben has explored the tetradic pathways of thinking. I have found it enormously useful to explore the pentadic pathways of thinking. And, occacionally septiadic (7) pathways of speculation. The deeper question is, When is the fullness of the thought expressible in logic terms such that inference can be made? From your perspectives, do any thoughts exist that can not be expressed in three terms? The question is, did CSP basically argue that any logical conclusion required three sentences? Or, did CSP basically argue that any logical conclusion required three connected terms? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
