Jack, List: Again, precise definitions of your terms are needed up-front, including "noumenal" and now "real" (why the scare quotes?) as well as "exist."
I was hoping for a straightforward deductive argumentation in accordance with classical propositional logic. If that is not possible, then I suggest choosing one of the standard systems of modal propositional logic, but that will introduce debatable premisses from the get-go, such as the nature of the accessibility relation. Requiring anything more sophisticated than that will further reduce the likelihood that your argument will turn out to be perspicuous and persuasive. I assume that you have published such a momentous result in a peer-reviewed book or journal. Maybe the first step is simply providing a link to that. Regards, Jon On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:28 PM Jack Cody <[email protected]> wrote: > John, List, > > I appreciate your reply. Well, Peirce has a good description and he calls > this the "real". Now, he makes a mistake when he says the noumenal is > nonsense (or words to that effect) for my proof necessitates that the > "real" can only exist (and does in absentia of all formalism I might add, > but I do not say Peirce did not know this either) insofar as you admit the > noumenal and this is beyond all possible experience (precisely as Kant > said). It is genuinely Apriori and is an inferred necessity. > > I'd rather ask you for the precise terms you want the proof in. The style > of logic (consistent/para-modal/etc) and so on rather than present one > which will be dismissed for some formal flaw. It's best that way. I have it > in many different "languages". It is flexible so I can accommodate you > here. You set the formal rules, explicitly, if you could (I ask a lot here > maybe), and I'll return the good faith with a proof in that language/style. > > Best > > Jack > > PS: the "real" is apriori (and I find Peirce most sensible when he does > agree with Kant, at that stage in his life where admits that something like > the noumenal must exist, before he later goes back upon it — if my > chronology is correct). > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2025 6:19 PM > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modeling and finalizing Peirce's semiotics with > AI, Part 1. > > Jack, List: > > JRKC: I think it close to impossible to demonstrate the necessity of a > triad > > > On the contrary, Robert Burch wrote an entire book to present his proof of > Peirce's reduction thesis ( > https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Peircean_Reduction_Thesis.html?id=MK-EAAAAIAAJ) > and provides a very brief summary in his online SEP entry about Peirce ( > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#red), while Sergiy > Koshkin purports to demonstrate it even more rigorously in a recent > *Transactions > *paper (https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/article/886447). Personally, I find > Peirce's own diagrammatic demonstration to be simple and persuasive > enough--relations of any adicity can be built up of triads, but triads > cannot be built up of monads or dyads despite *involving *them (EP 2:364, > 1905). > > [image: image.png] > > JRKC: I can prove the necessity of that Kant calls the Noumenal apriori > > > You have made this ambitious claim here before. What precise definition > are you using for "the Noumenal"? In other words, please spell out exactly > what you believe that you have proved, preferably as a complete deductive > argumentation with carefully formulated premisses and the conclusion that > (allegedly) follows necessarily from them. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:11 AM Jack Cody <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, Robert > > Thanks for the link to your paper. > > I have to say, and this may go down like a lead balloon, but to be truly > apriori, insofar as I am certain Kant and Hume use this term consistent > with what it ought to mean, in that it be "independent of experience", then > you must make provision for results which are not restricted to the > triadic. That is, I think it close to impossible to demonstrate the > necessity of a triad, which to me, is an arbitrary schema in all geometry > and sciences, regardless of qualitative distinction surrounding it which I > do understand (Peirce and so forth — it is not arbitrary for Peirce and he > makes his arguments as everyone knows). > > I'd be interested to know if you can prove the necessity of retaining the > triad and qualify "independent of experience" (I cannot). I can prove the > necessity of that Kant calls the Noumenal apriori and it is one of the few > things which is truly apriori (I'm hard pressed to think of a second, in > fact). > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
