[Inquiry] Re: Attribute, Impute, Represent -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

AIR.  Discussion Note 16

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: AIR-DIS 15.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-April/002571.html
In: AIR.         http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-April/thread.html#2566

JA: I don't get the sense that Peirce is deliberately punning here,
    at least not in any sort of malicious way, but I do from time
    to time get the suspicion that our evoluted natural languages
    have a distinctive malice aforethought weft into their warps.
    I think it can all be sorted out, howeaver, if not always
    by trying to fight words with words.  For the time being,
    it helps to realize that phrases like "imputed quality"
    are really circumlocutions for 3-adic relative terms
    like "quality imputed to __ by __", and thus that it
    is a category error, in several senses of the word
    "category" to put imputed qualities on a par with
    absolute qualities, acquired natures, and so on.


JR: Is it okay if we put them on par with internal qualities
    and relative qualities, as in the New List?

Joe,

Of course we compare them when we say that one is an absolute quality
and another is a relative quality, or when we specify the adicity of
the predicate or the relation that is implied in a given case, but
along the spectrum from 1-adic (absolute, essential, inherent,
internal, intrinsic, non-relative, or whatever) properties
through 2-adic, 3-adic, and the lot, only properties of
the same adicity can be put on a par with each other.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o