Jeff, List: JD: when the cars make contact, does the triadic relation exist?
What does it mean to say that a relation *exists*? Can a relation itself *react *with other like things in the environment? Or is it just another way of saying that a relation is *existential*? If so, is there anything more to it than being a relation between *things *that exist--i.e., the relation *is *a reaction between like things in the environment? JD: In saying that the triadic relation is degenerate, do you take that to imply it is reducible in all cases? I do not understand this question. By definition, a dyadically degenerate triadic relation is one that is reducible to its constituent dyadic relations. If it is not thus reducible, then by definition, it is a genuine triadic relation. JD: If so, is that another way of saying that it isn't really a triadic relation--or just that it isn't genuine? Any relation that has three correlates is a triadic relation. In fact, according to Peirce's reduction thesis, any relation that has three *or more* correlates is a triadic relation. Was that helpful at all? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:34 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > Here is a small technical point. Consider the classification of triadic > relations Peirce provides in "The Logic of Mathematics, an attempt to > develop my categories from within." > > He draws a distinction between the following classes of triadic relations: > > > 1. A monadically degenerate triadic relation, such as a relation of > similarity between three qualities of color. > 2. A dyadically degenerate triadic relation, such as a relation > between three existing individual objects (e.g., three cars simultaneously > running into one another at a three-way intersection). > 3. A genuinely triadic relation between facts, such as a physical law > governing the relation of cause and effect between two masses. > 4. A thoroughly genuine triadic relation between object, sign and > interpretant. > > > Just out of curiosity, what do you think we should say about the second > sort of triadic relation: when the cars make contact, does the triadic > relation exist? In saying that the triadic relation is degenerate, do you > take that to imply it is reducible in all cases? If so, is that another way > of saying that it isn't really a triadic relation--or just that it isn't > genuine? > > --Jeff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
