Ben:
My comment is from a chemical perspective. It may or may not be of
help to you.
On May 6, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
But first, on a general note, let me say that among the issues
driving =
my current display of confusion & error, is the question: if =
comprehension is for quality & predicate, while denotation is for =
objects (resistances/reactions), then what dimension is for =
representational and logical relations themselves? Words like "not," =
"probably," "if," etc. do not designate either qualities or
objects, nor =
do they represent objects as having this or that quality.
Names of chemical substances are always a subject of a chemical
sentence.
A chemical sentence can express existence. Water exists. This is in
the imperative mood.
A chemical name connotes the properties; the properties are context
dependent. (Thermodynamics, for example, describes the context
dependency of the variables of temperature, pressure and volume.)
What, then, do =
they connote? What do they denote?
The particular properties denote a specific substance; the particular
properties create the identity of the species in chemical logic.
(Of course, one must keep in mind that the chemical name always
refers to the pure substance. The problems of mixtures (like a
biological cell) are vastly more complicated with respect to
connotation and denotation. The concept of purity is difficult
enough in its own right!))
Of course, if one is philosophically opposed to the notion of
material existence, the expressions of chemistry are a linguistic
challenge!
Cheers
Jerry
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
