Re: Peirce’s 1870 “Logic Of Relat ives” • Proto-Graphical Syntax
Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> Sun, 02 Mar 2014 15:24:12 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.inquiry |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thread: JA:http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/02/12/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%E2%80%A2-proto-graphical-syntax/ HR:http://web.archive.org/web/20140213040631/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/11753 Helmut, List, Peirce's sign relations are triadic relations, triadic relations are of course a special sort of relations, and so, yes, the logic of relative terms and the mathematics of relations have no small application to the theory of signs that we know as Peircean semiotics. Indeed, it's my own sense from reading Peirce's early papers that he was driven by the need to understand the logic of science to develop a more realistic theory of inquiry, reflecting the full spectrum of reasoning generated by the three principal types of inference, that doing this demanded a more solid, 3-dimensional theory of sign relations, and that both the theory of inquiry and the theory of signs required by this task forced him to develop the logic of relatives and the mathematics of relations far beyond what was given when he set to work. (He reminds me of Brunelleschi in that way …) So it's not completely true that the relation denoted by “A gives B to C” is “completely different” from the relation denoted by “A brings B into the same sort of correspondence with C as that in which A itself stands to C”. The two relations share the property of being triadic relations and there is a lot to be said for what all triadic relations have in common. Peirce called that commonality, that property by the name of “Thirdness” and people do tend to chew the fat about Thirdness till Cerberus comes home. Still, you are right in thinking that invoking Thirdness is but the first step, not the be-all end-all in comprehending a given relation. After “compare” comes “contrast” and there is much more to be said about the differentia of specific triadic relations. Have to break here, will continue later … Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache _______________________________________________ Inquiry mailing list [email protected] http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/inquiry