Dear Sung, Edwina, List,
I think, the problem can (alternatively to the complicated syllogism logic) be explained with intension-extension and an inaccuracy inherent to the term "to be": To say "All signs are Peircean", does not mean, that this "are" is an activity by the signs, but by Peirce. Signs are passive objects in this case, and the activity is that of Peirces. So, to put the statement into the active form, does it go like this: "Peirce wrote about all signs"? No, because he didnt. He could not percieve all existing signs, the extension of the concept. He wrote about his concept of "all signs" (the- his- intension). Now, to turn it back into the original form, it would go like this: "The Peircean concept of all signs is Peircean", or: " "All signs"(Peirce) are Peircean" ("All signs" put into quotation marks requires the addition of (Peirce), to give the quote an adress and show the limitation). So, ""All signs"(Peirce) are Peircean" is much more limited than "All signs are Peircean". So it does not mean that all thoughts are Peircean, even not if Peirce wrote about thoughts too, because with "thoughts" there is the same intension-extension problem.
Best,
Helmut
Supplement: I think, what I wrote is wrong, because: "Peircean" means "as claimed by Peirce", and if Peirce claims to have adressed all signs, then all signs are objectively Peircean, and not only Peircean in the Peircean-subjective way. But it is a funny problem, because the label "Peircean" does not stick to the signs, as one gets the impression by reading "all signs are Peircean".
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Samstag, 04. Juli 2015 um 01:10 Uhr
Von: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>
An: PEIRCE-L <[email protected]>
Betreff: [biosemiotics:8747] Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Von: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>
An: PEIRCE-L <[email protected]>
Betreff: [biosemiotics:8747] Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sungchul Ji <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
To: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
--
From: Sungchul Ji <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
To: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
Edwina,
I have been noticing that you have the tendency to evade answering my 'difficult (?)' questions by ordering me to 'go and study Peirce' or now 'go and study syllogism'. As a permanent student, I have been doing and will continue to do both, even without your ordering.
But let me ask you one simple question. Do you think one needs to study syllogism to know whether or not Syllogism (070315-11) is true ? Perhaps it is you now who has to go and study syllogism (and may be physics too) to be able to answer this question.
Good luck.
Sung
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
Sung - go study some syllogistic logic before you make your incorrect assertions.Edwina----- Original Message -----From: Sungchul JiTo: Edwina TaborskyCc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-LSent: Friday, July 03, 2015 6:05 PMSubject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projectionEdwina,You wrote:". . . The correct syllogistic format must conclude with S is P, or (070315-10)
Minor Premise is Major Premise."I am not sure if this statement is universally true. Think of the following syllogism:1. All molecules are composed of atoms. (070315-11)2. All atoms obey the laws of physics.3. Therefore all molecules obey the laws of physics.which is of the format1. X is Y (070315-12)2. Y is Z3. Therefore X is Z.Syllogism(070315-11) is evidently true and hence so must be Syllogism (07031512), but their conclusions do not begin with the minor premise as you indicated in (070315-10). Do you still think your assertion (0703156-10) is universally true ? Or is it possible that your assertion is true only under some special conditions.All the best.SungOn Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:Sung- stop slithering. Your original syllogism, as YOU stated it, is quite clear; I didn't misrepresent it; and it is invalid for the reasons I gave.Your new syllogism commits the Fallacy of Format. The correct syllogistic format must conclude with S is P, or Minor Premise is Major Premise. Your format doesn't do this.Here is your 'syllogism'...All thoughts are SignsAll Signs are PeirceanTherefore all thoughts are Peircean.Your format isAll P-MAll M-STherefore P-S.[P=major premise; M=middle term; S=minor premise]Your format above is invalid. The conclusion must begin with the Minor Premise. But your conclusion leads with the Major Premise of 'thoughts'; it must lead with the Minor Premise of 'Peircean'. You can only conclude, logically, that 'all that is Peircean deals with thoughts/speech etc'. You cannot conclude that 'all that is thought/spoken etc..is Peircean'.You might want to look up the format of syllogisms.Edwina----- Original Message -----From: Sungchul JiTo: Edwina Taborsky ; biosemioticsCc: PEIRCE-LSent: Friday, July 03, 2015 3:16 PMSubject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projectionEdwina,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 signs3. Any topics about which we think, write, and speak are therefore are Peirce-related1. 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/speechesy = signsz = 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.SungOn 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 JiTo: PEIRCE-LSent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:53 PMSubject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projectionEdwina 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.SungOn 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 UdellSent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PMSubject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projectionSung, 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.SungOn 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] 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--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
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
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
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
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 .
