Jon: > On Apr 1, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > As we have discussed before, Peirce encountered severe limitations in trying > to represent modality (other than true/false) with only two dimensions. I > suspect that those difficulties are what forced him back to treating a Cut as > negation and a Line of Identity that appears to cross one as a Ligature > instead.
Are you really serious about this conjecture? If so, what text is influencing the conjecture? If so, what are the implications for the validity of CSP’s propositions that relate graph theory to relational logics of 1880’s, the relational logics that had an immense influence on the emergence of relational mathematics (category theory, etc)? Perhaps, most importantly, are you now willing to consider that the grammar of an individual’s lexical field can not be constrained to merely the question of subjects and predicates? Or, are you, (possibly similar to certain implications from John Sowa writings), irrevocably committed to the general validity of set theory as the logic of the sciences? 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 .
