Tom, Welcome to the list, and thanks for your interesting, somewhat cryptic, and perhaps even challenging first post.
Since of late I've been quoting Joe Ransdell from the PEIRCE-L page at Arisbe http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM I thought I'd take the opportunity of your joining the forum to quote a snippet of his on the theme of new members introducing themselves. INTRODUCING YOURSELF TO THE FORUM ------------------------------ Even if you have no substantive contribution to make—no question to raise, etc.—to the list-group initially and perhaps plan only to observe, the other members would appreciate it if you were to introduce yourself briefly, saying anything you like about yourself that would give all of us some idea of what your special interests in Peirce might be and what you might hope to gain from participation in the discussion, even if only as an observer. This can encourage others, who might only be waiting for a pretext to get into the topic that especially interests you. Do this whenever you want to do it. Don't wait for some especially appropriate time since there is none. While I agree with the spirit of this note, I do not think that it is absolutely necessary that any new member do this unless he or she feels comfortable doing so, although it is undoubtedly true that at least some "other members would appreciate it if you to introduce yourself briefly." So, if you've a mind to, please do introduce yourself to the list if and when your feel the urge. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings ~ > > 1. Everyone uses signs, including us, the dog catcher and pre-verbal > infants. > 2. Peirce discussed the use of signs in everyday settings to illustrate > semiotic principles. > 3. Therefore anyone's use of signs could potentially be used by Peirce to > illustrate semiotic principles. > > [#3 is more restrictive than "Peirce-related in one way or another." It > does not imply that infants, dog catchers or others engage in semiotic > analysis.] > > Regards, > Tom Wyrick (new member) > > > > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, > > I appreciate your careful analysis of my syllogism, but I disagree with > your conclusion that my syllogism is > > " . . . a circular argument and thus fallacious, as a syllogism, it is > invalid (070315-1) > because of the logical error of the undistributed middle" > > The reason for my disagreeing with your conclusion is given below. > > > You wrote: > > "The syllogistic fallacy that you make is: > (070315-2) > [ALL] X is y. > [ALL] Z is y. > Therefore [All] Z is X. > > The above is your format. It is invalid...because the 'middle term' of > 'y' that connects the two (X and Z) is not distributed. . . . . " > > > Syllogism (070315-2) is a misrepresentation of my original syllogism, > (070315-3), which is stated more clearly as (070315-4): > > > 1. We think, write, and speak in signs > (070315-3) > 2. Peirce's research was devoted to signs > 3. Any topics about which we think, write, and speak are therefore are > Peirce-related > > 1. We think/write/speak in signs > (070315-4) > 2. Signs are Peirce-related because he studied all kinds of signs > 3. Therefore all our thoughts/writings/speeches are Peirce-related (in one > way or another) > > You may not agree that (070315-3) and (070315-4) are equivalent (if you > don't, I would like to know the reason why you think so), but that was the > key point of my syllogism. > > My syllogism, (070315-4), is of the following format, which differs from > your (070315-2): > > [ALL] X is y. > > (070315-5) > [ALL] Y is z. > Therefore [All] X is z. > > where X = our thoughts/writings/speeches > y = signs > z = the object of the scientific investigation by Peirce, and > hence "Peirce-related" > > As you can see, (070315-5), does not involve any logical error, since the > middle term is distributed in both premises. > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sung, apart from being a circular argument and thus fallacious, as a >> syllogism, it is invalid because of the logical error of the undistributed >> middle. Look it up; I know that you don't understand syllogistic logic. >> >> The syllogistic fallacy that you make is: >> [ALL] X is y. >> [ALL] Z is y. >> Therefore [All] Z is X. >> >> The above is your format. It is invalid...because the 'middle term' of >> 'y' that connects the two (X and Z) is not distributed. Again - I'm not >> going to explain syllogistic logic to you. >> >> An example would be: >> ALL rabbits have fur. >> ALL (or my) dog has fur. >> Therefore my dog is a rabbit. >> >> That's the error you made. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> >> *To:* PEIRCE-L <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:53 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >> >> Edwina wrote: >> >> "Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and >> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that >> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and >> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of >> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness." >> >> I disagree with your conclusions above, since (i) I do not see any >> logical fallacy in what I said in my previous post which is summarized >> below nor (ii) did I say anything about the meaning of "sign". >> >> 1. We think, write, and speak in signs. >> 2. Peirce's research was devoted to signs. >> 3. Any topics about which we think, write, and speak are therefore are >> Peirce-related. >> >> Perhaps my understanding of your criticisms is incomplete. If you think >> so, I would appreciate your clarifications. >> >> All the best. >> >> Sung >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the list can be reduced to 'any and >>> all topics'. It's a Peircean list. >>> >>> Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and >>> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that >>> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and >>> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of >>> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness. >>> >>> As for Stephen and his matriarchal/patriarchal claims, my view is that >>> they are analytically incorrect; I consider that he has ignored the >>> economic mode and societal infrastructure as primarily causal of both these >>> modes of organization (matriarchy/patriarchy) - but, since these factors >>> are neither Peircean nor even semiosic, then, I have no intention of >>> getting into a debate on this list. >>> >>> But I do acknowledge Stephen Rose's post - for often, even when a post >>> states that it is Peircean related - this relation may be as invalid as >>> Sung's illogical claim above - or, as well, a few posters seem >>> isolate-in-themselves, speaking only for and about their own focus. This >>> can result in a monologue or a dialogue engaged in only by one other >>> person. That's what the 'delete' button is for. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Sung, all,Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we >>> can't emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for >>> Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on >>> 'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged, >>> multi-post discussions of a given topic should clarify and thematize the >>> topic's relation to Peirce because that is what is promised to subscribers >>> and that is what most subscribers expect.That has been and will continue to >>> be the policy of peirce-l.Best, Ben Udell as co-manager, peirce-l.* >>> >>> On 7/2/2015 5:42 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: >>> >>> Bev, Gary, lists, >>> >>> I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study >>> of signs and "Peirce-related" is thus "sign-related", it seems to me. >>> Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS, >>> and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as >>> Peirce-related in one way or another, including linguistic texts, chemical >>> equations, mathematical formulas, network diagrams, pictures, and whatever >>> else that may emerge in the future as NEW means of communication and >>> representation through the Internet. >>> >>> In other words, for me, semiotics is not yet closed. Its future should >>> not be confined to studying MACRO-SEMIOTICS as constructed by Poinsot, >>> Peirce, and others but should be open to studying both MICRO-SEMIOTICS as >>> currently being developed in biosemiotics (.e.g., DNA as a molecular sign) >>> and what may be called 'COSMO-SEMIOTICS' as may be developed in the future >>> (e.g., viewing spiral galaxies as cosmological signs). Imagine what >>> fantastic syntheses in philosophy Pierce's genius might be accomplishing >>> now were he alive today ! >>> >>> All the best. >>> >>> Sung >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than >>>> restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more >>>> technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style. >>>> >>>> Bev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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]>[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 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>> >>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>> Rutgers University >>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>> 732-445-4701 >>> >>> www.conformon.net >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >> >> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >> Rutgers University >> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >> 732-445-4701 >> >> www.conformon.net >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
