Jon, haha!
Thanks for that post. It was a delight to the eyes. I think the problem is simply that we haven't fully established what the narrative attached to CP 5.189 ought to be. It really is divine. Best, J On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry, > > You always seem to bring this up at the most inconvenient moments. Last > time I was in the throes of a fever 🤒 and could make only a cryptic remark > about the Sisyphean mountain of inquiry that Peirce mapped. And now I'm > stuck at ⭐️🦌🦌 waiting for a text ⚡️⚡️⚡️ > Later that night ⚡️⚡️⚡️ > The other day on Facebook I had occasion to describe the problematic we > encounter here as “Metaphysics Out Of Order”, meaning that it is premature > to tackle metaphysics before we've established well-provisioned base camps > ⛺️⛺️⛺️ at all the lower elevations on the mountain. We are nowhere near > having that basis yet laid down. > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-syllabus.jpg > > Regards, > > Jon > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > > On Feb 10, 2017, at 5:38 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > On “'Whether such a thing as metaphysics be at all possible?' > > > > It seems almost ridiculous, while every other science is continually > advancing, that in this, which pretends to be Wisdom incarnate, for whose > oracle everyone inquires, we should constantly move round the same spot, > without gaining a single step.” > > ~Kant, *Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics* > > > > “If the experts should but cannot advise in the Athenian assembly about > harbors and walls, it would seem that the instructional persuasion they > have is not and cannot be persuasive before a crowd, and the rhetorician > should have the knowledge of how to *adapt* the knowledge of others *into > a form that wins the trust of assemblies*. > > > > Why, however, cannot the experts themselves do the necessary adaptation?” > > > > ~Benardete, *The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy* > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thread: >> JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00094.html >> JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00098.html >> JFS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00100.html >> >> JA: >> >>> As far as "predicate" and "proposition" go, usage varies promiscuously. >>> Some people use them to mean syntactic elements, in the S & I domains. >>> Some people use them to mean objective elements, in the Object domain. >>> In a sign relational setting we need to admit both types of elements >>> and we need to be clear about their distinctive roles in the triadic >>> sign relation at hand. >>> >>> It can help to use a tactic that is common in computer science, simply >>> tack the epithet "expression" or "name" on the end of the formal object >>> name you have in mind in order to denote the associated semiotic entity, >>> e.g., function / function expression, predicate / predicate expression, >>> proposition / propositional expression, and so on. In many contexts one >>> can then use the terms equivocally in the usual way, adding the epithet >>> only when necessary to focus on the syntax. >>> >> >> On 2/10/2017 2:14 PM, John F Sowa wrote: >> >>> JA: As far as "predicate" and "proposition" go, usage varies >>> promiscuously. >>> >>> JFS: Logicians are consistent in the way they use those words. >> >> Well, no, they aren't. Most logicians and other perfectly >> sensible folks are hardly even consistent in the way they >> use those words within a single context, much less across >> the whole wide literature and history of logic. And yet >> there are sensible ways of resolving the resulting Babel. >> That is a big part of what the sign relational framework >> is for. >> >> By the way, it isn't what one calls the syntactic structures -- >> expressions, graphs, propositions, rhemes, sentences, whatever -- >> that makes one a nominalist, it is the claim that the syntactic >> entities are sufficient. >> >> If syntactic entities are not sufficient then there must be >> other sorts of objective entities that the syntactic entities >> denote. In many cases of practical interest we can recover the >> isomorphic structure of the object domain as equivalence classes >> of the syntactic entities. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> >> -- >> >> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
