List: > On May 8, 2026, at 7:14 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Belief" is a term for not a logical concept, but for a hardened state of > mind. Knowledge is due to deduction. To estimate a probability is due to > induction, and to take something for possible is due to abduction. But to > believe in something doesn´t have a logical background, only its fixation can > be analysed to four kinds. "I know, that not" is a knowledge, "I don´t know, > that" too. "It is possible, that not" is a possibility, "It is not possible, > that" is not a possibility anymore. "It is probable, that not" and "It is not > probable, that" are both probabilities. "I believe, that not" is a belief, > but "I don´t believe, that" is not a belief anymore. So, belief logically > works like possibility, and knowledge like probability.
What forms of logicality are being addressed in these sentences? Let’s discuss. In CSP's syntactical table (matrix of classes of terms), Qualisign Sinsign, Legisign, aligns signs with precisely chosen “word forming elements” that charge the reader with associating the meanings of signs with multiple possible forms of ordinations of meanings. In the second row of this syntax-generating table (matrix), Icon, Index, Symbol, CSP aligns a set of cognitive terms that associate multiple concomitant terms that potentially align the signs with forms of logicality. In the third row of the table, CSP aligns three terms Rhema, Dicisign, Argument thereby generating an alignment of a 3x3 matrix of syntactical words which he uses to associate cognitively the logicality of sentences, that is, an argument (a determinative proposition that is valid) It is critical to note that the de novo genesis of a proposition from specific predecessor terms is the task aligned with the term _argument_ . The first column of the matrix structural order aligns the meanings of qualisigns, icon, and rhema as necessary illative terms that point to a specific identity. The second column of the matrix structural order aligns the meanings of terms sinsign, index (numbers, ordering?) and dicisign (ordination?) into a specific form of transitivity that are necessary to form an argument that potentially specifies the legisign. This line of reasoning is grounded on the presumption of a consistent linguistic (syntactical, indexical, grammatical) interpretation of scientific evidence without any direct reference to mathematical operations or mathematical structures such as “linear algebra” or “isomorphisms”. It appears CSP is using the term “legisign” as an alternative to stating that a meaningful name of identity is assigned to the sinsign. Open question: The question is what motivates the change in order of the second row from “icon, index, symbol” to “index, icon, symbol”? What would be the cause such that the logicality of all specific patterns of syntactical and grammatical inference among terms of the argument be changed? Would it be revised because of an insufficient grammatical structure to support a meaningful (valid) assertion under any situation or semiotic circumstance? Cheers Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
