John
It seems to me that an emphasis on ’semantics rather than syntax’ sets up an
analytic frame focusing only on entities operating within a mode of Secondness
- and ignoring the mode of Thirdness operating in syntax..
Edwina
> On Mar 11, 2024, at 3:27 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> In my
Jon, John, List:
The attempts to interpret the on going discussions leads to simple questions
about meaning of symbols and logics.
Given a graphic object, how does one decipher the logical content of it?
What types of semantics can be associated with what types of visual
distinctions?
How
Jerry, List:
Your questions as posed are extremely general, and their answers depend
heavily on the particular context of interest.
Peirce *assigns *specific logical content to certain signs in his
Existential Graphs (EGs) and develops the transformation rules for them
accordingly. In all parts,
John,
Despite your earlier comment in a post addressed to me on March 6 where you
wrote that "the important references are in the future, not the past" -- a
remark which, in this matter of Delta EGs, I cannot say I much agree with
insofar as it relates to Peirce's work -- it remains impossible
John, List:
CSP: The better exposition of 1903 divided the system into three parts,
distinguished as the Alpha, the Beta, and the Gamma, parts; a division I
shall here adhere to, although I shall now have to add a *Delta *part in
order to deal with modals.
JFS: Peirce is not saying that he is
Jeff, List,
Those are important questions:
JBD: How important is it to consider the things Peirce is reading for the sake
of understanding what he says? Let me start with a simple point. Can we
understand what Peirce is explicitly saying about another author's views
without reading the