| Line 373: |
Line 373: |
| | | | |
| | To sum up, we have recognized the perfectly innocuous utility of admitting the abstract intermediate object <math>i,\!</math> that may be interpreted as an intension, a property, or a quality that is held in common by all of the initial objects <math>x_j\!</math> that are plurally denoted by the sign <math>y.\!</math> Further, it appears to be equally unexceptionable to allow the use of the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} i \, {}^{\prime\prime}</math> to denote this shared intension <math>i.\!</math> Finally, all of this flexibility arises from a universally available construction, a type of compositional factorization, common to the functional parts of the 2-adic components of any relation. | | To sum up, we have recognized the perfectly innocuous utility of admitting the abstract intermediate object <math>i,\!</math> that may be interpreted as an intension, a property, or a quality that is held in common by all of the initial objects <math>x_j\!</math> that are plurally denoted by the sign <math>y.\!</math> Further, it appears to be equally unexceptionable to allow the use of the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} i \, {}^{\prime\prime}</math> to denote this shared intension <math>i.\!</math> Finally, all of this flexibility arises from a universally available construction, a type of compositional factorization, common to the functional parts of the 2-adic components of any relation. |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Work Area==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | The word "intension" has recently come to be stressed in our discussions.
| |
| − | As I first learned this word from my reading of Leibniz, I shall take it
| |
| − | to be nothing more than a synonym for "property" or "quality", and shall
| |
| − | probably always associate it with the primes factorization of integers,
| |
| − | the analogy between having a factor and having a property being one of
| |
| − | the most striking, at least to my neo-pythagorean compleated mystical
| |
| − | sensitivities, that Leibniz ever posed, and of which certain facets
| |
| − | of Peirce's work can be taken as a further polishing up, if one is
| |
| − | of a mind to do so.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As I dare not presume this to constitute the common acceptation
| |
| − | of the term "intension", not without checking it out, at least,
| |
| − | I will need to try and understand how others here understand
| |
| − | the term and all of its various derivatives, thereby hoping
| |
| − | to anticipate, that is to say, to evade or to intercept,
| |
| − | a few of the brands of late-breaking misunderstandings
| |
| − | that are so easy to find ourselves being surprised by,
| |
| − | if one shies away from asking silly questions at the
| |
| − | very first introduction of one of these parvenu words.
| |
| − | I have been advised that it will probably be fruitless
| |
| − | to ask direct questions of my informants in such a regard,
| |
| − | but I do not see how else to catalyze the process of exposing
| |
| − | the presumption that "it's just understood" when in fact it may
| |
| − | be far from being so, and thus to clear the way for whatever real
| |
| − | clarification might possibly be forthcoming, in the goodness of time.
| |
| − | Just to be open, and patent, and completely above the metonymous board,
| |
| − | I will lay out the paradigm that I myself bear in mind when I think about
| |
| − | how I might place the locus and the sense of this term "intension", because
| |
| − | I see the matter of where to lodge it in our logical logistic as being quite
| |
| − | analogous to the issue of where to place those other i-words, namely, "idea",
| |
| − | capitalized or not, "impresssion", "intelligible concept", and "interpretant".
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Document History== | | ==Document History== |