[Inquiry] Re: Logic Of Relatives

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

LOR.  Note 39

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

The use of the concepts of identity and teridentity is not to identify
a thing in itself with itself, much less twice or thrice over, since
there is no need and thus no utility in that.  I can imagine Peirce
asking, on Kantian principles if not entirely on Kantian premisses,
"Where is the manifold to be unified?"  The manifold that demands
unification does not reside in the object but in the phenomena,
that is, in the appearances that might have been appearances
of different objects but that happen to be constrained by
these identities to being just so many aspects, facets,
parts, roles, or signs of one and the same object.

For example, notice how the various identity concepts actually
functioned in the last example, where they had the opportunity
to show their behavior in something like their natural habitat.

The use of the teridentity concept in the case
of the "giver of a horse to a trainer of it" is
to stipulate that the thing appearing with respect
to its quality under the aspect of an absolute term,
a horse, and the thing appearing with respect to its
recalcitrance in the role of the correlate of a 2-adic
relative, a brute to be trained, and the thing appearing
with respect to its synthesis in the role of a correlate
of a 3-adic relative, a gift, are one and the same thing.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o