Jeff, List: My purpose (as usual) is to interpret Peirce by attempting to harmonize each passage that I encounter with his corpus taken as a whole, in accordance with my systematizing and regularizing tendencies. In this case, I am mainly just calling attention to the incongruity of treating the relations of surrendering and acquiring as triadic, rather than dyadic. If, in fact, Peirce was incorrect to do so in this particular manuscript, then that obviously casts doubt on its usefulness for understanding what he said elsewhere.
I would also like to point out that as far as I can tell, the concept of a "thoroughly genuine triadic relation" appears *only *in "The Logic of Mathematics" (c. 1896), and not in any of Peirce's subsequent writings, with one notable exception. CSP: It may here be remarked that Combination is a triadic relation between the two elements (for every Combination results from successive couplings) and the result, and is in so far genuine that it cannot be analyzed into any Combination of dyadic relations. But Combination is not a thoroughly genuine triadic relation, since the different elements, the Combinants, are (as far as the mere relation of combination goes) in precisely the same relation to the result, the Combinate. (EP 2:391; 1906 Jan) With all of that said, far be it from me to block the way of inquiry--if you are finding it fruitful to continue down the road that you are pursuing, by all means keep going. Thanks, Jon S. On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 8:17 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote: > 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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 1:26 PM John F Sowa <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 .
