Michael, List:
Thank you for posting your provocative introduction.
The broad range of your interests are apparent and of deep interact to me.
Many of my “quarrels” with the science-society interface emerge from the
different understandings of words - as precision instruments of logic or as
enraging explosions of emotions.
With that in mind, I struggled with the organization of the proposed “index” to
the image of a coherent text.
So, I offer the following comments / suggestions from a scientific linguistics
perspective (semantics, syntax, propositions, equations.)
1. The “Seven Postulates” do not represent postulates as the term postulates is
used in logic and mathematics.
None of the seven are independent units of thought.
Grammatically, the indexed phrases are sort of a run-on sentence that is
extraordinarily difficult to parse.
As a potential reader of a book on Logic, I expect that exactly seven
independent concepts will be presented, each crisply and unambiguously stated.
1,2,3, and 4 contain two separate ideas such that the nature of the proposition
is unclear.
5 and 6 can be read as statements of fact. 7 announces itself as a conclusion,
apparently drawn from the first six!
2. The assertion that the seven “postulates” are “juxtaposed” with two sets of
three is radically unclear to this reader.
In examination of the proposed “juxtapositioning” I find that “postulates” 1,3,
5 (and perhaps 6?) could be related to
B. Modes of being of language.
Thus, it makes more sense to me to switch the order of B and A “sets”.
Would the title of the proposed book be more representative of the content if
the order of the two phrases of the title were switched?
After writing these comments, I ask myself: perhaps this is intended more as an
outline than an introduction?
While I am keenly interested in the distancing between lexical fields and
syntactical fields, and while this introduction includes potential useful
material, I question the axiology of this proposed structure.
Please do not be offended by the sharpness of my comments. I have taken the
time to write this email in hopes of contributing to the success of your
efforts.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Michael Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear List,
>
> I posted something a couple of days ago which I fear didn't go through, so
> I'm repeating it here.
>
> For those of you who are interested in linguistics and semiotics, I'm
> attaching the New Introduction to the book I'm working on, which will
> amalgamate my two earlier Sense books published by Indiana UP in 1983 and
> 1991. Your comments would be most welcome.
>
> Best,
> M.
> <NEW INTRODUCTION.pdf>
> -----------------------------
> 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]
> <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] <mailto:[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
> <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 .
