http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
> On Jul 4, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well...you take a chicken..and then... > > And Happy Independence Day to America - and to Canada as well. All nations, > in my view, ought to acknowledge the enormous contribution that the > Declaration of Independence did for the world. The Magna Carta was a brave > start to wrest power from the hereditary owners, but the Declaration was > powerful - with its specific focus on 'everyday man' and his unique and > personal powers of speech, thought, the right to live and think as an > individual. That was an incredible declaration of the rights of every human > being. And it did indeed lead to 'exceptionalism', technologically, > scientifically and politically, for any and all innovations, new ideas..were > accepted as 'open for discussion and experiment'. > > So, as a Canadian who has benefited from this focus on 'the everyday man' - > Three Cheers for America. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary Richmond > To: Peirce-L > Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 9:37 AM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Final on More on applying theory - culture, projection > > 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 > > > > 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 >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] ; PEIRCE-L >> 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
