Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination

Dear list, The object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we already know, something else which we do not know. "I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry man. The indescribable, the ineffable, the incomprehensible, commonly excite emotion; but nothing is so

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination

List, Jeff > On Apr 5, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > At various points, he steps back from the examination of our common > experience and tries to provide a more exact logical analysis of the > relations involved, focusing on three kinds of

Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination

Jon S, Gary R, List, It seems clear, at least to me, that there must be some significant differences between the kinds determination that hold between correlates in dyadic or triadic relations that have the character of possibles, existents or necessitants. Otherwise, we would not have a rule

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination

Jeff: It looks like you sent this to me only, but intended to post it to the List, so I hope that you do not mind if I respond (briefly) on-List. JD: In the definition of the sign, it appears that we have two kinds of determination: one type is dyadic in character, such as when correlate A

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination

Jeff, List: I still suspect that there are at least subtle differences in the meaning of "determines" between these three passages. CSP: In every genuine Triadic Relation, the First Correlate may be regarded as determining the Third Correlate in some respect; and triadic relations may be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination

Jon S, List, Let me respond to a question you haven't yet raised, and then I'll try to respond to the questions you have. The initial idea I was trying to suggest was meant to be an interpretation of the the relation of determination that holds between the sign and the three kinds of