Changes

==Selection 1==

==Selection 1==

<pre>

<blockquote>

| The letters of the alphabet will denote logical signs.

<p>The letters of the alphabet will denote logical signs.<br>Now logical terms are of three grand classes.</p>

| Now logical terms are of three grand classes.

 

<p>The first embraces those whose logical form involves only the conception of quality, and which therefore represent a thing simply as "a ---".  These discriminate objects in the most rudimentary way, which does not involve any consciousness of discrimination.  They regard an object as it is in itself as ''such'' (''quale'');  for example, as horse, tree, or man.  These are ''absolute terms''.</p>

| The first embraces those whose logical form involves only the

 

| conception of quality, and which therefore represent a thing

<p>The second class embraces terms whose logical form involves the conception of relation, and which require the addition of another term to complete the denotation.  These discriminate objects with a distinct consciousness of discrimination.  They regard an object as over against another, that is as relative;  as father of, lover of, or servant of.  These are ''simple relative terms''.</p>

| simply as "a ---".  These discriminate objects in the most

 

| rudimentary way, which does not involve any consciousness

<p>The third class embraces terms whose logical form involves the conception of bringing things into relation, and which require the addition of more than one term to complete the denotation. They discriminate not only with consciousness of discrimination, but with consciousness of its origin.  They regard  an object as medium or third between two others, that is as conjugative; as giver of --- to ---, or buyer of --- for --- from ---. These may be termed ''conjugative terms''.</p>

| of discrimination.  They regard an object as it is in

 

| itself as 'such' ('quale');  for example, as horse,

<p>The conjugative term involves the conception of ''third'', the relative that of second or ''other'', the absolute term simply considers ''an'' object.  No fourth class of terms exists involving the conception of ''fourth'', because when that of ''third'' is introduced, since it involves the conception of bringing objects into relation, all higher numbers are given at once, inasmuch as the conception of bringing objects into relation is independent of the number of members of the relationship.  Whether this ''reason'' for the fact that there is no fourth class of terms fundamentally different from the third is satisfactory of not, the fact itself is made perfectly evident by the study of the logic of relatives.</p>

| tree, or man.  These are 'absolute terms'.

 

<p>C.S. Peirce, CP 3.63</p>

| The second class embraces terms whose logical form involves the

 

| conception of relation, and which require the addition of another

<p>Charles Sanders Peirce, "Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic", ''Memoirs of the American Academy'', Volume 9, pp. 317–378, 26 January 1870, ''Collected Papers'' (CP 3.45–149), ''Chronological Edition'' (CE 2, 359–429).</p>

| term to complete the denotation.  These discriminate objects with a

</blockquote>

| distinct consciousness of discrimination.  They regard an object as

| over against another, that is as relative;  as father of, lover of,

| or servant of.  These are 'simple relative terms'.

| The third class embraces terms whose logical form involves the

| conception of bringing things into relation, and which require

| the addition of more than one term to complete the denotation.

| They discriminate not only with consciousness of discrimination,

| but with consciousness of its origin.  They regard  an object

| as medium or third between two others, that is as conjugative;

| as giver of --- to ---, or buyer of --- for --- from ---.

| These may be termed 'conjugative terms'.

| The conjugative term involves the conception of 'third', the relative that of

| second or 'other', the absolute term simply considers 'an' object.  No fourth

| class of terms exists involving the conception of 'fourth', because when that

| of 'third' is introduced, since it involves the conception of bringing objects

| into relation, all higher numbers are given at once, inasmuch as the conception

| of bringing objects into relation is independent of the number of members of the

| relationship.  Whether this 'reason' for the fact that there is no fourth class

| of terms fundamentally different from the third is satisfactory of not, the fact

| itself is made perfectly evident by the study of the logic of relatives.

| C.S. Peirce, CP 3.63

| Charles Sanders Peirce,

|"Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives,

| Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic",

|'Memoirs of the American Academy', Volume 9, pages 317-378, 26 January 1870,

|'Collected Papers' (CP 3.45-149), 'Chronological Edition' (CE 2, 359-429).

</pre>

==Commentary Note 1==

==Commentary Note 1==