I do not see how we can talk here about an operative relationship that would be a triad relationship. It is not anything other than the composition of two morphisms and I do not ask for more. 3,2 and 1 are the "place names," and "involves" are arrow names that I usually call alpha and beta. Now if you think about the determinations in the sign, I have always assumed after much study of the 76 definitions, this idea that the composition of applications captures the presence in the mind of each of the elements of the sign, in such a way that they are themselves ipso facto connected by a triadic relationship. There is a relationship of * tricoexistence * that is established as in this case evoked by Peirce: "It predicates the genuinely Triadic relationship of *tricoexistence, * "P and Q and R coexist" ( 2.318; unfortunately there is a hole in my PDF of CP right after and I given my paper edition at the library of my university, inaccessible at the moment)
we have a mutual incomprehension ? Best regards, Robert Le mer. 6 mai 2020 à 18:16, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> a écrit : > Robert, All ... > > Re: https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00054.html > > As it happens, I've been working on a comment about your first point below > but I'll post it back on your original thread, when and if I manage to put > it in respectable shape, since I'm finding this welter of indirections too > distracting. Just by way of a hint for now, the issue turns on whether we > take "involves" or "presupposes" to be a dyadic relation and a transitive > one at that, as we would if we pass from "3 involves 2" and "2 involves 1" > to the conclusion that "3 involves 1". That may be true for some concepts > of involution or presupposition but I think the operative relation in this > case is a thoroughly irreducible triadic relation, one whose properties do > not reduce to the composition of two dyadic relations. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 5/6/2020 7:09 AM, robert marty wrote:> Gary, Jon Alan, Jon Awbrey, List > > > > *1 *-First I note that the formulation "3ns involves 2ns, which involves > > 1ns" is very dangerous [because] it forgets that 2ns has its autonomy > and > > 1ns too. If you look at the podium on remains in the inner cylinder. > > It seems to me that Peirce's reproach to Hegel is: > > > > "*He has usually overlooked external Secondness, altogether. In other > > words, he has committed the trifling oversight of forgetting that there > is > > a real world with real actions and reactions. **Rather a serious > oversight > > that".* > > > > It is therefore important to prefer"3ns involves 2ns and 1ns, while 2ns > > involves 1ns" which preserves the autonomy of the Peircian categories so > > as not to encourage the idea of a possible peircean hegelianism. " > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
