John, All, List: With your permission given below, I am posting this reply on Peirce-L. Anyone is obviously still free to respond off-List if that is preferred.
JFS: The theory of EGs that Peirce presented in L231 (which I have been calling eg1911) is the one he wished Lady Welby and her group to consider his last and best version of EGs. This claim is a plausible interpretative hypothesis based on the circumstances and timing of the letter, but it should be acknowledged that the text itself does not state or imply any such specific intention on Peirce's part. JFS: Some readers might be misled by Peirce's earlier writings to think that there is some "deeper" meaning that is not expressed by a nest of two ovals. Such an impression is not misleading at all, since Peirce *explicitly *denies that a consequence (scroll) is strictly equivalent to a composite of two negations (nested cuts). I already quoted the following passage in one of my Peirce-L posts, but it is worth repeating. CSP: The second failure of Selectives to be as analytical as possible lies in their encouraging the idea that negation, or denial, is a relatively simple concept, and that the concept of Consequence, is a special composite of two negations, so that to say, “If in the actual state of things A is true, then B is true,” is correctly analyzed as the assertion, “It is false to say that A is true while B is false.” I fully acknowledge that, for most purposes and in a preliminary explanation, the error of this analysis is altogether insignificant. But when we come to the first analysis the inaccuracy must not be passed over. ... Indeed, so far is the concept of *Sequence *from being a composite of two Negations, that, on the contrary, the concept of the Negation of any state of things, X, is, precisely, a composite of which one element is the concept of Sequence. Namely, it is the concept of a sequence from X of the essence of falsity. (R 300:[47-51], 1908) According to Peirce, it is neither correct nor accurate to analyze "if A then B" as "not (A and not-B)," although "for most purposes ... the error of this analysis is altogether insignificant." Treating negation as a primitive results in a system that is simpler and more iconic, but not "as analytical as possible" because negation is "a composite of which one element is the concept of Sequence," which by contrast is indecomposable and fundamental to logic. CSP: A sequence is a unidimensional form in which there is a difference between the relation of A to B and of B to A. Mathematically considered, in one dimension it is a progress from a point A to a point B, where A and B are different or A and B may coincide, or they may both vanish. Of these three forms of sequence, the first [hyperbolic] is distinctly that of logic since the ultimate antecedent and the ultimate consequent are different in logic. You cannot proceed from antecedent to consequent till you reach again your original antecedent (as in the 3rd kind of sequence, the elliptical), nor do you *tend *to such a return (as in the second, or parabolic sequence), but the two are distinct. (NEM 4:127, 1897-8) Peirce even generalizes this to the very process of semeiosis, whose sequence is always from the object through the sign to the interpretant. "The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign" (EP 2:410, 1907). Hence I continue to maintain that the cut for negation must be *derived *from the scroll for consequence with a blackened inner close, rather than treated as a primitive, even when shading is employed instead. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:56 PM John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon et al., > > I have no objection to posting any or all of these notes on Peirce-L. I > sent my previous note offline to avoid stuffing everybody's inboxes with > endless debates about a very straightforward claim: The theory of EGs that > Peirce presented in L231 (which I have been calling eg1911) is the one he > wished Lady Welby and her group to consider his last and best version of > EGs. > > Re the word 'scroll': In terms of the semantics (endoporeutic) and > permissions (rules of inference) of eg1911, a scroll is *indistinguishable* > from a shaded area with a nested unshaded area. Anything that Peirce wrote > about scrolls prior to 17 June 1911 is useful only for understanding the > development of Peirce's thought. After that date. the word 'scroll' can > only create confusion. Some readers might be misled by Peirce's earlier > writings to think that there is some "deeper" meaning that is not expressed > by a nest of two ovals. > Re intuitionistic logic: Peirce may have had some vague thoughts along > those lines, but he never formulated them precisely. Anybody has a right o > develop an intuitionisitic extension to EGs and use whatever notation they > prefer. But their choice of syntax and semantics for those EGs is > independent of anything that Peirce wrote. > > John >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.
