Jerry,
For reasons of email traffic management, I'm reluctant to forward any post to the biosemiotics list unless I can see that it's relevant both to biosemiotics generally and to Stjernfelt's Natural Propositions. All of us who are subscribed to both lists will have to use our judgement to decide when forwarding is appropriate and when it isn't. In this case, I don't see any good reason to forward it. If you think it's relevant to biosemiotics, then you ought to join the list and post it there yourself. And if you think it's relevant to the Stjernfelt book, then (like Jon) you need to state what that relevance is. Your hypothesis about "logical tensions for CSP" resulting from notational changes in chemistry does not accomplish this. As with Jon, I see no indication that you've read any of NP, so I can't validate your claim to the relevance of your post to this seminar. If you do want to subscribe to the biosemiotics list, the URL is http://lists.ut.ee/wws/info/biosemiotics gary f. From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sent: 2-Sep-14 12:03 PM To: Peirce List Cc: Gary Fuhrman; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Jon Awbrey Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re:Natural Propositions List: The following differentiating opinions are significant to the foundations of CSP Logic and philosophy of science, and, by pragmatic extension, to his philosophy more generally conceived. On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: Re: Gary Fuhrman At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13838> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13838 "I think your book will change all that, showing as it does a dicisign - that is, a sign complete enough to be true - must involve both iconic and indexical components, but does not have to be symbolic." Gary, That statement is the very epitome of the retrograde motion that has occurred in the understanding of Peirce's logic and semiotics in recent years. If that really is Frederik's thesis then you have just saved me the trouble of an utterly futile discussion. Regards, Jon We all know that CSP was educated as a chemist. The open question is how did his educational history contribute to his future developments He understood the chemical notations of his day as both a mathematical system and material system in his view of "thing, representation, and form". CSP's philosophy of pragmaticism is grounded on his opinions relating scientific thought to non-scientific thought. Historically, the notation for chemistry underwent historic changes during CSP lifespan as a consequence of the rapid development of organic chemistry. Organic chemistry can NOT be notated in the symbol system devised by Berzelius (1779-1848) for inorganic chemistry. That is, salts are a composite of two or more elements as electrical particles with polar opposition. This created substantial logical tensions for CSP which he never resolved, although he worked at the challenge for decades. CSP recognized that the logic of chemistry was different from the usual logic of mathematics because of the conflict between the symbol system devised by organic chemists necessarily required icons and indexes that differ from the symbol system for inorganic salts. Most organic chemicals are not ions and lack the physical properties of ions. So, Jon, I both concur and do not concur with your post in the following ways. I do not concur with the following statement That statement is the very epitome of the retrograde motion that has occurred in the understanding of Peirce's logic and semiotics in recent years. I do concur with the second sentence: If that really is Frederik's thesis then you have just saved me the trouble of an utterly futile discussion. Yes, it would be futile to attempt to fit your interpretation of CSP logic of relatives into Frederik's thesis. I will post more about the details of Natural Propositions and the relationships to natural logic shortly, as it relates directly to the International system of units for scientific measures. Cheers Jerry (GaryF - please forward my messages to the Biosemeiotics list serve as I am not a member of it.)
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
