I agree with Edwina on all points, although I was hoping to one day have her chicken soup recipe and am disappointed that that's unlikely to happen now (on-list at least). So, it's off to the races, literally: in an hour I'm heading off to Belmont Park with friends for the US Independence Day Holiday. To my American friends, Happy Fourth of July!
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 Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > No, Helmut, there is no need to complicate the situation. The issue is > really very simple. > > Sung was trying to prove that any topic whatsoever is valid for discussion > on the Peirce list, because, all topics are expressed in words (signs), > and, since Peirce's work was involved in signs...then..anything and > everything could be discussed. This is a superficial and circular > argument. Essentially, using this axiom, one could provide chicken soup > recipes on the Peirce List...simply and only..because the recipes are > expressed 'in signs'. > > Sung was trying to use syllogistic logic to prove his point - and he was > misusing that logic - and thus making all kinds of logical fallacies. I was > pointing these out - and he was refusing to acknowledge that both the > format didn't prove his point, and the content, being circular, was empty > (the conclusion is presupposed by a weak premise...everything is in > signs..Peirce researched signs..so, everything is Peircean). > > I deleted this post being sent to the biosemiotics list (which Sung > added); I see no point in bothering them with this juvenile argument - and > I will not discuss the issue further on the Peirce list. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] ; PEIRCE-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 04, 2015 5:39 AM > *Subject:* Aw: [biosemiotics:8747] Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying > theory - culture, projection > > > > > 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 > > ---------- 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]> > > > 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 Ji >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky >> *Cc:* biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L >> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 6:05 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >> >> Edwina, >> >> 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 format >> >> 1. X is Y >> >> (070315-12) >> 2. Y is Z >> 3. 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. >> >> Sung >> >> On 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 Signs >>> All Signs are Peircean >>> Therefore all thoughts are Peircean. >>> >>> Your format is >>> All P-M >>> All M-S >>> Therefore 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 Ji >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky ; biosemiotics >>> *Cc:* PEIRCE-L >>> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 3:16 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >>> >>> 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 >>>> *To:* PEIRCE-L >>>> *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 >>>>> *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] 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 > > > -- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
