Frederik, List: Thanks for the clarification.
In my writings, I used the term "proto-proposition" to refer to either the first proposition in a sequence of propositions or to a prior proposition which precedes (perhaps by several steps) the final proposition from which the conclusion(s) of the arguments are to be drawn. For example, a chemical molecule may contain "n" atoms. Thus, a set of proto-propositions (the existence of a set of proper names of atoms contained in the molecule) is necessary to start the argument about its icon (atomic structure.) Along this same vain of meaning of terms, do you understand CSP's usage of the word "argument" to include a conclusion or the set of conclusions? Or, is it merely a set of dicisigns arranged for a purpose? Cheers Jerry On Nov 2, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: > Dear Jerry, lists - > > There is a bit terminological confusion here. Peirce's distinction within > Dicisigns was between propositions and quasi-propositions, the latter being > those Dicisigns which are not symbols. (One confusion comes from the fact > that Peirce often uses "Dicisign" and "proposition" interchangeably, such > that propositions have two subtypes: propositions and quasi-propositions - > this seems sloppy but is widespread in everyday language, think of "Cows" > having the two subtypes "Cows" and "Bulls" (Jakobson's "markedness")) > James Hurford whose ideas I discuss in a later chapter uses > "proto-proposition" to refer to parts of "proto-thought" in higher animals > (specifically monkeys). > I do not think these two concepts, quasi and proto, are identical. > > Best > F > > Den 23/10/2014 kl. 19.09 skrev Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]>: > >> Tyler, List: >> >> I am a quite uncertain about the meaning of the term "proto-proposition" >> >> Could you hew-out a rough definition of your meaning? >> >> It would be helpful, but not necessary, to place the notion of >> "proto-proposition" in relation to the terms of the triadic triad. >> >> It would also be helpful but not necessary to know whether or not a >> proto-proposition should be thought of a form of an antecedent. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> On Oct 23, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Tyler Bennett wrote: >> >>> >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
