List, Jerry
Come now; I think that your comments, below, are a trifle specious.
You wrote:"One of the basic attributes of intellectual freedom is the
right to choose the words one uses. I am quite certain that John did
not intend to restrict discussion with this emotional appeal.. SO HOW
IS ONE TO INTERPRET THIS HIGHLY UNUSAL LINGUISTIC CLAIM?
I find that the notion that word 'seme' is obsoleteto be without
any rational foundation in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology
and linguistics.However, this usage is perfectly acceptable in
philosophical chatter, but, even in philosophical discourse, it could
be viewed as a bit
narcissistic."------------------------------------------1] By all
means - one can choose the words one uses. But if very few understand
them - then, how functional is your communication?
2] How is John's statement an 'emotional appeal'? I would consider a
conclusion that 'X is Y', a rational and logical one. To say that a
particular term is not in common usage is hardly an 'emotional
appeal' .
Nor is it at all a 'highly unusual linguistic claim'. There are
many terms that are no longer in common use.
3] Since narcissism refers to a personality type, then, how can an
objective comment about the common usage or not of a particular term
have anything remotely to do with 'narcissism'?
Edwina
On Wed 30/01/19 3:32 PM , Jerry LR Chandler
[email protected] sent:
List, John:
On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:16 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
That means that the word 'seme' is obsolete.
One of the basic attributes of intellectual freedom is the right to
choose the words one uses. I am quite certain that John did not
intend to restrict discussion with this emotional appeal.. SO HOW IS
ONE TO INTERPRET THIS HIGHLY UNUSAL LINGUISTIC CLAIM?
I find that the notion that word 'seme' is obsoleteto be without
any rational foundation in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology
and linguistics.However, this usage is perfectly acceptable in
philosophical chatter, but, even in philosophical discourse, it could
be viewed as a bit narcissistic.
Quite to the contrary, after reading the descriptions, I concluded
that the choice of the word “seme“ brings a coherence to several
aspects of CSP terminology. In other words, it clarifies his
abandonment of the 1860-1880 logical framework in the time frame of
1890 -1900 and replaces it with a foundational set of identity terms
that are useful for constructing relationships among objects that are
Proper Nouns.
My conjecture is that the usage of the mathematical notion of model
theory as predicate logic is simply a metaphoric dodge to get rid of
the challenges of the logics of Proper Nouns. Several recent posts
strongly suggest the desire to delete Proper Nouns from the logical
interpretations of CSP’s writings.
I have attempted to understand CSP’s global claim,
“In my universal algebra of logic, these is no common noun”
In this context, it is reasonable to interpret the word “seme”
as a specific replacement for the word “sign" as an individual
interpretation of exterior signs. Further, in this context, the word
“seme” can represent specific technical terms that are indices
that contribute to the representative “symbol” for the external
qualisigns of the sinsigns that are composed into graphs as symbols.
In my view, the foundations of logic are perplex because of the
absolute mathematical necessity to clearly and distinctly separate
proper nouns from common nouns. Of course, if one starts from the
premise that mathematical predicate logic fully, completely and
totally resolves al issues concerning the foundations of logic, one
does not need to bother with Proper Nouns. Hence, the finding of the
CSP quote:
“In my universal algebra of logic, these is no common noun”
affirmed many other conjectures about the organization of the
formative form of the triple triad as a generative source of
arguments and identity.
See the books and papers of Gila Sher for recent discussions of the
perplex foundations of logic from a modern mathematical perspective.
Cheers
Jerry
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
