ONT Re: De In Esse Predication
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
DEIP. Note 13
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
| A modal dyadic relation is either a relation between characters
| (including qualities and relations of individuals, of characters,
| and of concepts), or between symbols, or concepts.
|
| Dyadic relations between characters mostly correspond to
| relations between the subjects of those characters or to
| relations between the symbols of them; and such need not
| be separately considered. There remain some relations
| between characters, especially between qualities, which
| do not seem to be derivative. Such are the relations
| of "being more intense than", of "being disparate to"
| (or in applicability to subjects of the same category,
| as multitude and intensity are disparate). But, so
| far as appears at present, no particular logical
| interest attaches to such relations, and they
| will here be passed by.
|
| Dyadic relations between symbols, or concepts, are matters of logic,
| so far as they are not derived from relations between the objects and
| the characters to which the symbols refer. Noting that we are limiting
| ourselves to modal 'dyadic' relations, it may probably be said that those
| of them that are truly and fundamentally dyadic arise from corresponding
| relations between propositions. To exemplify what is meant, the dyadic
| relations of logical 'breadth' and 'depth', often called denotation and
| connotation, have played a great part in logical discussions, but these
| take their origin in the triadic relation between a sign, its object,
| and its interpretant sign; and furthermore, the distinction appears
| as a dichotomy owing to the limitation of the field of thought, which
| forgets that concepts grow, and that there is thus a third respect
| in which they may differ, depending on the state of knowledge, or
| amount of information. To give a good and complete account of
| the dyadic relations of concepts would be impossible without
| taking into account the triadic relations which, for the
| most part, underlie them; and indeed almost a complete
| treatise upon the first of the three divisions of logic
| would be required.*
|
|*
|[ The three divisions of logic are:
| 1. Speculative Grammar (= the theory of signs)
| 2. Critical Logic (= denotative semantics)
| 3. Speculative Rhetoric (= methodology, methodeutic)]
|
| C.S. Peirce, 'Collected Papers', CP 3.606-608,
|'A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic', intended
| as a supplement to the "Lowell Lectures of 1903".
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o