Jon S,
If I understand you correctly, then it appears that we are guided--at least in part--by different purposes. I am trying to interpret Peirce's account triadic relations and square it with what he says about tetradic and higher ordered relations. You, on the other hand, don't accept some of the claims he is making, and you are asking me for demonstrations that Peirce's analyses of these relations are correct. Given the fact that I don't take myself to understand what he is saying in these puzzles passages in the 1905 letter to Lady Welby, it seems a bit premature to ask me for demonstrations that his assertions are correct. I'm just trying to work out some interpretative hypotheses and then see if they square with--and perhaps even shed some light on--what he says about the living character of thoroughly genuine triadic relations. My primary interest is in explaining the living character of these relations, and I'm looking at puzzling passages as a way of testing the general approach I've been exploring. It is good, I think, to be clear about one's purpose in making a post. As such, I'm making mine more explicit now. Yours, Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________________________________ From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 6:02 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations John, List: JFS: To clarify these issues, search CP for every occurrence of "A gives B". I did exactly that last night, and what I found has influenced my responses accordingly. CSP; ... every dyad by a particularization evolves a dyadic triad. Thus, A murders B is a generalization of A shoots that bullet, and the bullet fatally wounds B. (CP 1.474; c. 1896) JFS: By the same analysis, 'surrender' and 'acquisition' would be dyadic triads ... What replaces the bullet as the third correlate if we evolve "A surrenders B" or "A acquires D" into a dyadic triad? Incidentally, there are various circumstances when "A murders B" is not an accurate generalization of "A shoots that bullet" and "that bullet fatally woulds B"--e.g., if A and B are soldiers for opposing armies during a battle, or if A is acting in self-defense, or if B is not a human being, or if the shooting is accidental. Regards, 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 Sat, May 11, 2019 at 1:26 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net<mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> wrote: Jeff and Jon, To clarify these issues, search CP for every occurrence of "A gives B". Peirce states the issues in different ways, but the following example illustrates the general principle: > A triad may be explicated into a triadic tetrad. Thus, A gives B > to C becomes A makes the covenant D with C and the covenant D > gives B to C. (CP 1.474) By this analysis, Peirce used hypostatic abstraction to convert 'gives' into a covenant D that relates A, B, and C. But that tetrad is "degenerate" in the sense that it is derived from a triad. Earlier in paragraph 1.474, he writes > every dyad by a particularization evolves a dyadic triad. Thus, > A murders B is a generalization of A shoots that bullet, and the > bullet fatally wounds B. By the same analysis, 'surrender' and 'acquisition' would be dyadic triads in > d. μ is the surrender by A of B > e. m is the surrender by C of D > g. ν is the acquisition by A of D > h. η is the acquisition by C of B John
----------------------------- 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 .
