[Inquiry] Re: Kaina Stoicheia

[Jon Awbrey]

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

KS.  Note 5

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

Peirce List,

In our reading of the parts of the "Kaina Stoicheia" that take up --
or take off from -- the subject of "Theory and Practice", we have
covered this much:

KS 1.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-September/003063.html -- NEM 4, 238-240
KS 2.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-September/003065.html -- NEM 4, 240
KS 3.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003075.html   -- NEM 4, 240
KS 4.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003090.html   -- NEM 4, 241

We continue with that reading here:

| Other distinctions depend upon those that we have drawn.
|
| I have spoken of real relations as reactions.  It may be asked how far I
| mean to say that all real relations are reactions.  It is seldom that one
| falls upon so fascinating a subject for a train of thought [as] the analysis
| of that problem in all its ramifications, mathematical, physical, biological,
| sociological, psychological, logical, and so round to the mathematical again.
|
| The answer cannot be satisfactorily given in a few words;  but it lies hidden
| beneath the obvious truth that any exact necessity is expressible by a general
| equation;  and nothing can be added to one side of a general equation without
| an equal addition to the other.  Logical necessity is the necessity that a sign
| should be true to a 'real' object;  and therefore there is 'logical' reaction in
| every real dyadic relation.  If 'A' is in a real relation to 'B', 'B' stands in
| a logically contrary relation to 'A', that is, in a relation at once converse to
| and inconsistent with the direct relation.  For here we speak [not] of a vague
| sign of the relation but of the relation between two individuals, 'A' and 'B'.
|
| This very relation is one in which 'A' alone stands to any individual,
| and it to 'B' only.  There are, however, 'degenerate' dyadic relations, --
| 'degenerate' in the sense in which two coplanar lines form a 'degenerate'
| conic, -- where this is not true.  Namely, they are individual relations
| of identity, such as the relation of 'A' to 'A'.  All mere resemblances
| and relations of reason are of this sort.
|
| C.S. Peirce, ["Kaina Stoicheia"], NEM 4, 241
|
| C.S. Peirce, ["Kaina Stoicheia"], MS 517 (1904), pp. 235-263 in:
| Carolyn Eisele (ed.), 'The New Elements of Mathematics by
| Charles S. Peirce, Volume 4, Mathematical Philosophy',
| Mouton, The Hague, 1976.
|
| Cf. "New Elements", pp. 300-324 in 'The Essential Peirce, Volume 2 (1893-1913)',
| Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1998.

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