Jon Alan, List That's very good, but it's better when you say it. I deduce that "the" can have the value of "A" or "My" or "plausible A" ... I'm an incorrigible frenchie ... Sorry…
As I think that there are only interpretations of signs I can hardly contribute to your questioning only by confirming my full agreement with the logic of the interpretation that I discovered more than 40 years ago at Peirce in a large number of forms and in particular this one : *"Let it be repeated that all the terms of the division must be strictly relevant to logic, and that consequently all accidents of experience, however universal, must be excluded. The result of this rule will necessarily be that the new concept of a "sign" will be defined exclusively by the forms of its logical relationships; and the utmost pains must be taken to understand those relations in a purely formal, or, as we may say, in a purely mathematical way."( EP2 : 389)* I've studied this quote in : Marty, Robert, « A Purely Mathematical Way for Peirce's Semiotics », dans Charles Sanders Peirce in His Own Words: 100 Years of Semiotics, Communication and Cognition, Berlin-New-York-Amsterdam, Thellefsen, Torkild / Sorensen, Bent, 2014 (ISBN <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number> 978-1-61451-641-5 <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Ouvrages_de_r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rence/978-1-61451-641-5> ). https://www.degruyter.com/view/book/9781614516415/10.1515/9781614516415.415.xml The logic of the interpretation that I retain is obtained by following Peirce through the combination of two formal entities: - a suite of determinations of length n - the ordered universal categories applicable to objects placed in determinans and/or determinatum positions in these sequences Valid classes are the result of this formal logic of interpretation. For n = 3 and n = 6 Peirce implemented this logic. He did not do it for n = 10 because he did not specify any determinations for the 4 new objects. I do not see the need to create a mix to revise what made him famous as the "father of modern semiotics" ... but I only ask to be convinced by blunt arguments, i.e. an alternative coherent formal construction. For the time being, I do not see it pointing wherever I turn and I wish good luck to those who will devote themselves to it. Best regards, Robert Le jeu. 16 juil. 2020 à 02:34, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Robert, List: > > Inserting "only possible" into my thread title indicates a > misunderstanding of my intention--an interpretative hypothesis that > apparently seemed plausible but was incorrect. I was simply echoing the > statement by Eco that I quoted in the first post, "The logic of > interpretation is the Peircean logic of abduction," as well as the title of > the article by Abraham that I quoted in the second post, "Intentions and > the Logic of Interpretation." Moreover, I concluded the second post with > the question, "What additional methods of interpretation should we include > in the mix?" > > As Michael Mitchell suggested > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00122.html> a > couple of months ago, "Surely propositions in a thread starter act as > invitation, implicitly." I am interested in discussing the logic of > interpretation in general, not claiming that there is only one such logic. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:04 AM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon Alan, List >> >> Why do you call your thread "*The* Logic of interpretation" (the bold is >> mine) when all your text says is *"**Your*" logic of interpretation and >> ends with a self-assessment that "this kind of insight is "extremely >> fallible" and must be put to the test"? Your next text corrects slightly by >> stating that your logic consists of "fallible but plausible hypotheses" . >> This >> alone should lead you to turn your title into a "*A* logic of >> interpretation" or "*My* logic of interpretation. Otherwise your title >> can be seen as a real provocation since as it stands it declares itself as >> *the >> only possible *logic of interpretation. >> >> In any event, the weakness of your justifications does not prompt me to >> discuss it and I have understood in our anteriors debates that it would be >> a pain and a waste of time. Indeed I know that I will be subject to the Law >> set out by the Russian physicist Sergey Lopatnikov who anonymously >> published an essay in which he introduced a following definition: >> >> *If the text of each phrase requires a paragraph (to disprove), each >> paragraph - a section, each section - a chapter, and each chapter - a book, >> the whole text becomes effectively irrefutable and, therefore, acquires >> features of truthfulness. **I define such truthfulness as transcendental* >> *.*(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law, similar >> concepts) >> >> I am sorry but I can't discuss your logic. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Robert >> >>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
