----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com>
To: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <stevenzen...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
Thank you! I was expecting more. But it just seems to be passing phraseology.
GCM
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <stevenzen...@gmail.com>
To: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
It's there, second sentence of the second paragraph.
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Gary Moore wrote:
> Dear Doctor Ericsson-Zenith,
> Thank you for the reply! However, unless my brain is far too fuzy, I do not
> find John Deely's quotation "the positive internal characters of the subject
> in itself". Did Doctor Deely misquote? Did the quote come from elsewhere?
> -----
> It is an intriguing statement possibly subtantualizing both "internal" and
> "subject" which, in Deely and Poinsot's terminology would mean they are
> foundational terminals in a Peircean Triad would it not?
> -----
> Does anyone have suggestions, referrences, or information?
>
> Thank you for your consideration,
> Gary C. Moore
>
> P. S. If I have done anything improper please tell me. I am new to the group.
> From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <stevenzen...@gmail.com>
> To: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION
>
> FYI
>
> CP 5.469 This illustration has much more pertinence to pragmatism than
> appears at first sight; since my researches into the logic of relatives have
> shown beyond all sane doubt that in one respect combinations of concepts
> exhibit a remarkable analogy with chemical combinations; every concept having
> a strict valency. (This must be taken to mean that of several forms of
> expression that are logically equivalent, that one or ones whose analytical
> accuracy is least open to question, owing to the introduction of the relation
> of joint identity, follows the law of valency.) Thus, the predicate "is blue"
> is univalent, the predicate "kills" is bivalent (for the direct and indirect
> objects are, grammar aside, as much subjects as is the subject nominative);
> the predicate "gives" is trivalent, since A gives B to C, etc. Just as the
> valency of chemistry is an atomic character, so indecomposable concepts may
> be bivalent or trivalent. Indeed, definitions being
scrupulously observed, it will be seen to be a truism to assert that no
compound of univalent and bivalent concepts alone can be trivalent, although a
compound of any concept with a trivalent concept can have at pleasure, a
valency higher or lower by one than that of the former concept. Less obvious,
yet demonstrable, is the fact that no indecomposable concept has a higher
valency. Among my papers are actual analyses of a number greater than I care to
state. They are mostly more complex than would be supposed. Thus, the relation
between the four bonds of an unsymmetrical carbon atom consists of twenty-four
triadic relations.
>
> Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of indecomposable
> concepts correspond three classes of characters or predicates. Firstly come
> "firstnesses," or positive internal characters of the subject in itself;
> secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of one subject or substance on
> another, regardless of law or of any third subject; thirdly comes
> "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental influence of one subject on
> another relatively to a third. Since the demonstration of this proposition is
> too stiff for the infantile logic of our time (which is rapidly awakening,
> however), I have preferred to state it problematically, as a surmise to be
> verified by observation. The little that I have contributed to pragmatism
> (or, for that matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been
> entirely the fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much
> more than the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show.
>
> Steven
>
> --
> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
> http://iase.info
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Gary Moore wrote:
>
> > To whom it may concern,
> > In John Deely's FOUR AGES OF UNDERSTANDING page 647 he quotes Peirce as
> > saying "the positive internal characters of the subject in itself"
> > [footnote 109 Peirce c. 1906: CP 5.469].
> > -------------
> > I only have the two volumes of THE ESSENTIAL PEIRCE and cannot locate it.
> >
> > Gary C Moore
> > P O Box 5081
> > Midland, Texas 79704
> > gottlos752...@yahoo.com
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
> > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of
> > the message. To post a message to the list, send it to
> > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
