[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 : The Logic Of Relatives

2015-02-01 Thread Jon Awbrey
Peircers, Here is the first selection from Peirce's chapter on relatives in the 1880 Algebra of Logic. http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/01/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-1/ Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press b

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Triadic Relations

2015-02-01 Thread Jim Willgoose
Jon, It looks like you worked on this (FC, FP) recently but the post originators did not reply or the Word Press collapsed or both. "If a family of subsets of a finite set is closed under union, then there is an element of that belongs to at least half of the sets in the family." And

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations

2015-02-01 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Well, I am going to disagree with Jon. As John Collier points out, Peirce was 'open' with his use of the term 'sign' and often used it to refer to any one of the relations in the triad; i.e., to the symbol, to the icon, to the index...and to the representamen and to the interpretant..and to the

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations

2015-02-01 Thread Jon Awbrey
John, List, To follow up on the question of the representamen vs. sign distinction, as far as I can recall Peirce uses that only to distinguish the maximally abstract and general concept of a sign, which he calls a "representamen", from the more special concept of a sign with a mental interpretan

[PEIRCE-L] back to NP

2015-02-01 Thread Gary Fuhrman
Lists, Here we are at the end of January, and Cathy Legg will shortly be launching a discussion of Chapter 9 of Natural Propositions. So if there are other questions left over from the previous chapters of NP, now is a good time to raise them. As for Howard's question here, whole books coul

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations

2015-02-01 Thread Jon Awbrey
John, List, The whole sign relation, say L subset of O x S x I, is called a sign relation. For relations in general, Peirce wrote a k-tuple as x1 : x2 : ... : xk and called it an elementary relative or an individual relative. Strictly speaking, relatives are terms denoting, not the objects deno

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations

2015-02-01 Thread John Collier
Hi Jon, What would you call the whole triadic relation in that case? I have assumed that Peirce introduced 'representamen' to avoid the potential confusion, but he isn't consistent by any means. (His care about terminology was not always manifested.) I suppose we could use 'sign triplet', being