[Inquiry] Re: Logic Of The Sciences

[Jon Awbrey]

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

LOTS.  Note 3

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

| We can, now, apply induction to 'all that is',
| in the widest sense;  and so find the character
| of the 'summum genus'.  Whatever is immediately
| present to us, will be instances of 'what is'.
| These instances, have then two characters
|
|        (1) They are representations
|
|    and (2) They are addressed to 'us'.
|
| That they are addressed to 'us', is only the limitation of
| our selection, and therefore must be abstracted from.  That
| they are representations, arises from their being 'taken' as
| instances.  They are not merely representations of instances,
| but are representations 'as' instances.  Hence, we presume
| that 'whatever is' is a representation.  This is confirmed by
| an indirect form of argument.*  If there were something which
| were not a representation it would not be represented, for an
| object represented is a representation of the same object in
| itself.  But the supposition of anything unrepresented, is
| self-contradictory since that which is supposed is thereby
| represented.  Hence 'all is representative'.
|
| *  I say 'form' of argument for I do not
|    pretend that these arguments contain
|    any matter.
|
| C.S. Peirce, 'Chronological Edition', CE 1, 324
|
| C.S. Peirce, "Logic of the Sciences", MS 113 (1865), pp. 322-336 in:
|'Writings of Charles S. Peirce:  A Chronological Edition, Vol. 1, 1857-1866',
| Peirce Edition Project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.

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