>>11136937Nah. Peirce's logic; or semieotic is the closest guess at the riddle so far.
Peirce coming from the logic of relation is different from Aristotle as the categories are the (3) Universal modes of being. Peirce's three catagories; firstness, secondness, and thirdness relate to each other in the process of semiosis, this universal logic of relation is the Semieotic. Peirce's semiotic ontology is the "foundation"(Peirce is not a foundationalist in the normal sense) for a relational theory and evolutionary cosmology that philosophically accomadated general relativity, quantum indeterminacy and more well before theoretical physics had a hint. That's not to say that Peirce didn't into physics, he did, and insisted he was doing physical metaphysics when he wasn't doing logic.
Anyways the law of the excluded middle can be taken as a germinal conception of thirdness, or habit taking. In metaphysics this comes out as synechism. I'm getting bored and I'm sure I'm telling you way too much about something I can neither communicate or understand with any viable certainty. So I give you two quotes that form at least one relevant riddle riddle if you take them together in a certain way.
>Nor must any synechist say, “I am altogether myself, and not at all you.” If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarest delusion of vanity.>I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My insertion of "upon a person" is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood 
