Jerry C, List, You concluded in your last post:
JC: In any case, it is not a super-serious issue so do not lose any sleep over it. Although you can be quite certain that I'm *not* going to "lose any sleep over it," yet you've made some very serious claims against certain of my intellectual positions as expressed in a recent post. You wrote: JC: Your post appears to me to propose serious contrary assertions to CSP’s views as well as your own.//It appears to me that your post rejects your basic thesis of vector analysis. Again, please cut and post from my original message anything which might support these statements with commentary as to why you interpret them to do so. You say I've proposed "serious contrary assertions to CSP's view." OK, what are these "*serious* *contrary assertions*"? And how in the world does my post reject* my very own* "basic thesis of vector analysis." Please show this as. You also wrote: JC: It also appears to me that you insist and persist on the rejection of the consistency of the semiotic relationships between sign and the ancient notion of “antecedent- consequence” which is one of the essential grounding of CSP's logic, and indeed, a radix of all of logic. This strikes me as pure nonsense and if true would make me the most illogical of men. But, in fact, there is nothing in my post having anything do with "antecedent-consequence." I challenge you to show me my 'insistence and persistence' in mistaking this matter. It was taken up niether by Jeff Downard nor myself. You continued: JC: What can you propose to be consistent with your long historical record of posts on firstness, secondness and thirdness where the order of the symbols is supposed to determine the validity of the argument? Are you asserting that the spectulative grammar of icon, index, and symbol infer order of antecedent-consequence? Again, demonstrate by cutting and pasting where I "assert" that "speculative grammar of icon, index, and symbol infer order of antecedent-consequence." I cannot see that I ever *suggest* anything like this, let alone "assert" it. Well, that is perhaps enough from your first critical post, I suppose. But in your second, your response following my asking for you to specifically to where in my original post I made any of your, frankly, wild assertions you write: JC: The reasoning is simple with respect to your post. It is the way CSP forms some propositions and propositional functions around sentences with copula. The role of copula in modern logic is minimal but is critical in certain arguments. As far as I can recall at the moment, your views do not require reasoning about copula. If you have examples of the contrary, I would be delighted to learn of your views. It is not I who has to provide "examples of the contrary" re: the copula, but rather you must show how my post has anything even vaguely related to the discussion of the copula, as important as a consideration of it most certainly is in Peirce's scientific logic (I have discussed it on the list and elsewhere). In fact, I do not recall myself ever in disagreement with Peirce's position regarding the copula. So, *you* need to show me the logic of your thinking in making that critique, and not the other way around. Writing now, in part, as moderator of this list, since Peirce-l is essentially self-moderating, there is an expectation here that when claims--especially such as some of the radical ones made by you *contra* my thinking--when such claims are made, it is requisite that they be supported by pointing to specific passages, not evaded, brushed aside, obscured by introducing other issues, etc. When someone makes such a serious critique of another forum members thinking as expressed in a list post (such as you have made of mine), that person has an obligation to support his critique with specific quotations from the forum member being critiqued with accompanying argumentation supporting the critique by the person making it. (See: Please see Joe Ransdell's discussion of the forum on the peirce-l page of Arisbe http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM ) You have not even begun to do that. So, please either do that or withdraw your, in my opinion, bizarre and off-base criticism which, I should add, completely surprised me given your long and often valuable participation in this forum. Best, Gary R [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 <718%20482-5690>* On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > Gary, List: > > On Jun 19, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <[email protected]>> wrote: > > As you appear to approve Jeff D's recent post, while mine was, in large > part, meant to explicate some of the ideas he offered offering little new > of my own, I am mystified as to why you would be interpreting my comments > as "serious contrary assertions" not only to Peirce's but to my own views. > > > Yes, I appreciated the careful and thoughtful development of Jeff’s > argument. I admire his capacity to faithfully integrate the specialized > vocabularies of philosophy, mathematics and CSP’s texts. > > The reasoning is simple with respect to your post. It is the way CSP > forms some propositions and propositional functions around sentences with > copula. > > The role of copula in modern logic is minimal but is critical in certain > arguments. As far as I can recall at the moment, your views do not require > reasoning about copula. If you have examples of the contrary, I would be > delighted to learn of your views. Copula play a critical role in > scientific logic, for example, in formative operators. > > In any case, it is not a super-serious issue so do not lose any sleep over > it. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
