Robert, Jon A., List: In CP 2.318 (1903), Peirce is discussing "the question whether every proposition has a Subject and a Predicate," and only brings up tricoexistence in the specific case of a *copulative *proposition.
CSP: It predicates the genuinely Triadic relation of *tricoexistence*, "P and Q and R coexist." For to say that both A and B is true is to say that something exists which *tricoexists *with true replicas of A and B. Tricoexistence is a genuine triadic relation in the sense of being a *continuous *relation, because it has infinite valency--there is no limit to the number of simple propositions that we can conjoin in a copulative proposition. Put another way, there is no limit to the number of existential graphs that can be scribed on the sheet of assertion. My question is--how does all this bear on the relation of involution (or presupposition) between Peirce's categories of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:25 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 .
