Jon, List:
> On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > What would be some examples of medad Rhemes that are not Propositions? If > there are any, why did Peirce explicitly affirm (at least twice) that a medad > Rheme is a Proposition? Or is there an important distinction between a Rheme > and a rhema that I am overlooking? > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > JAS, List >> On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> According as the number of blanks in a rheme is 0, 1, 2, 3, etc., it may be >> termed a medad (from {méden}, nothing), monad, dyad, triad, etc., rheme. (CP >> 2.272, EP 2:299; 1903) >> >> The first sentence requires at least one part of a Proposition to be erased >> in order to produce a Rheme; so a "medad Rheme" with zero blanks is really >> still a Proposition, since nothing has been erased from it. > > “0” is “0”, not one. > > In normal usage of language, the interpretation that an erasure is necessary > to generate a rhema (rheme ) is every rare. > This usage create a direct contradiction which appears unlikely for CSP. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > ——————————— Jon, List: I stand corrected. My apologies to both you and CSP! My response did not consider the first sentence of 2.272. I am not aware of any important distinction between the two terms, rheme and rhema. Others may comment??? As is often the case, once I noted my error, the meaning of 2.272 was substantially clarified. Would you agree that the “blank” form of the proposition, contains the entire proposition with the exception of the “proper names”? For example, given a elaborate proposition of a perplex structure containing 1001 proper names, the rheme with one erasure would contain 1000 terms and all the relations among these thousand terms. The role of the one erased term in the meaning of the proposition would be constrained to the meaning of the one term. However, given a elaborate proposition of a perplex structure containing 1001 proper names, the rheme with two erasures would contain 999 terms and all the relations among these 999 terms. The role of the two erased terms in the meaning of the proposition would be unknown because either term could be placed another blank! (These two interpretations are based on modern graph theory (complete graphs) part-whole relations (mereology)) As an aside, mathematically, the terms dyad, triad, etc, do not represent counts of independent variables because the set of 1001 proper names are interdependent terms, that is, relative terms. >From the perspective of chemical logic, if the initial elaborate proposition >represented a chemical reaction, the meaning of the rheme with one blank would >depend on the position of “blank” in the chemical graph in the structure (or >more perplex descriptions of the role of the particular name in the blank.) This insight adds considerable insight into the meanings of 3.420-1. Perhaps this may shed some light on the difference between relative and non-relative rhema when a non-chemical lexical field is deployed. Thanks for your insights. 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 .
