Hi everyone, In case anyone else has also noticed our current situation:
"Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men." ~Fixation of Belief, Peirce, Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877) So, what does the method of logic of icons, index, symbols prescribe as a way out of this situation? ...Let's watch... Best, Jerry R On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
