Jon, List,
I was thinking of comparing the sentence "C thanks A for B" with a square root: The square root of a positive number has either a positive or a negative result (or is it both?). And, that C is thankful is also only one possibility of result: C might also not like B and reject it, or might not care and not react. Ok, this is not a proper comparison, because the square root delivers only two exact results, and Cs possible feelings about being given a B are on a gradual scale. So I guess, that in poetry and language there is logic too, but a fuzzy logic. When a poet tries to produce something nonlogical, eg. in Dadaism, is this really "extra-logical", or just very very fuzzy? I mean, can there be something unique extra-logical at all?
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2015 um 15:50 Uhr
Von: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
An: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Six Ways of Looking at a Triadic Relation ⌬ 1
Von: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
An: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Six Ways of Looking at a Triadic Relation ⌬ 1
Inquiry Blog:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/04/six-ways-of-looking-at-a-triadic-relation-%E2%8C%AC-1/
Peirce List:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15622
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15623
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15625
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15626
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15627
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15628
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15629
JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15630
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15631
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15632
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15633
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15655
Helmut, List,
It was Peirce that said that, and it is a very important observation.
There is of course more to the story and I hope to get to it in time.
The issues that you, and perhaps Edwina, are raising here are covered by
what my first formal logic course called "the difference between logical
statements and their natural language paraphrases". It is the muse-born
poetic nature of our mother tongues to import all manner of adventitious
extra-logical connotations into any venture of logic that takes recourse
to their stocks. But the logical statement per se is more abstract than
that. Its substance must be extracted from the sol of its mother liquor
if Apollo be saved from deriving while intoxicated by Dionysian phantoms.
Cheers,
Jon
On 2/4/2015 3:49 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Hi Jon, List,
> you said, that "these six sentences express one and the same indivisible
> phenomenon.". That is right, the core phenomenon is the same. With "core
> phenomenon" I mean the observed event. But the difference is made by the
> observers, of which there are two: First the overall observer, who is the same
> one in all cases: You or me. Second, the intermediate observer, with whom the
> overall observer is identifying him/herself with: This one is changing, he is
> always the firstly mentioned: A,A,B,C,C,B. Now the difference eg. between the
> first and the second statement is, that the intermediate observer (in both cases
> "A") is identifying him(her)self with "C" in the first sentence, and with "B" in
> the second. In the fourth statement "C" is identifying with "A", and in the
> fifth with "B". Well, somehow. Maybe "identifying" is not a proper term, because
> it is too digital. Maybe it would be better to say, where is an emotional
> connection, or, whom does the intermediate observer regard for the main cause
> for his/her benefit, or to whom does she/he suppose more responsibility, or more
> ability, autonomy, reason. So, there are six sentences, that all have different
> subtle meanings, though they are telling the same event. All this I find not
> easy to grasp. Linguistics, semiotics.
> Best,
> Helmut
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/04/six-ways-of-looking-at-a-triadic-relation-%E2%8C%AC-1/
Peirce List:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15622
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15623
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15625
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15626
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15627
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15628
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15629
JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15630
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15631
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15632
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15633
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15655
Helmut, List,
It was Peirce that said that, and it is a very important observation.
There is of course more to the story and I hope to get to it in time.
The issues that you, and perhaps Edwina, are raising here are covered by
what my first formal logic course called "the difference between logical
statements and their natural language paraphrases". It is the muse-born
poetic nature of our mother tongues to import all manner of adventitious
extra-logical connotations into any venture of logic that takes recourse
to their stocks. But the logical statement per se is more abstract than
that. Its substance must be extracted from the sol of its mother liquor
if Apollo be saved from deriving while intoxicated by Dionysian phantoms.
Cheers,
Jon
On 2/4/2015 3:49 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Hi Jon, List,
> you said, that "these six sentences express one and the same indivisible
> phenomenon.". That is right, the core phenomenon is the same. With "core
> phenomenon" I mean the observed event. But the difference is made by the
> observers, of which there are two: First the overall observer, who is the same
> one in all cases: You or me. Second, the intermediate observer, with whom the
> overall observer is identifying him/herself with: This one is changing, he is
> always the firstly mentioned: A,A,B,C,C,B. Now the difference eg. between the
> first and the second statement is, that the intermediate observer (in both cases
> "A") is identifying him(her)self with "C" in the first sentence, and with "B" in
> the second. In the fourth statement "C" is identifying with "A", and in the
> fifth with "B". Well, somehow. Maybe "identifying" is not a proper term, because
> it is too digital. Maybe it would be better to say, where is an emotional
> connection, or, whom does the intermediate observer regard for the main cause
> for his/her benefit, or to whom does she/he suppose more responsibility, or more
> ability, autonomy, reason. So, there are six sentences, that all have different
> subtle meanings, though they are telling the same event. All this I find not
> easy to grasp. Linguistics, semiotics.
> Best,
> Helmut
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
