Imran, List, As Joe Ransdell wrote on the Peirce-L page of Arisbe when he created both Peirce-L and Arisbe:
Discussion should be Peirce-related but not necessarily on Peirce, and the working test for relevance would simply be a plausible explanation of why the topic in question should be under discussion on a list called "PEIRCE-L: The Philosophy of Charles Peirce", given that people subscribe to such lists with some more or less definite expectations about subject-matter in mind. *https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM <https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM>* As I wrote earlier today, it is not and should not be required of any member of the List, including the Moderator, to have to ask for the relevance of a post; that is the responsibility of the poster. And I should add that it has been only when Jon has posted several consecutive posts that did not meet this minimum requirement that either Joe or I intervened. Too many of Jon's posts do not meet the criterion of relevance to the forum. As a matter of the history of Peirce-L, Jon is one of only two people who Joe Ransdell removed from the List in his many years as Moderator and for the very reason that Jon was not willing to offer that self-same relevance. Some long term forum participants may recall that history, and I know that the co-manager with me of Peirce-L and Arisbe, Ben Udell, does indeed recall it as he and I discussed it not very long ago. As did Joe, I have tried off-list and on-list to encourage Jon to post only relevant messages to Peirce-L, but for whatever reason, he resists doing so. When he has been relevant, as have you, I too have valued his contributions even when we weren't in agreement on a given issue. I would, in fact, very much like to see Jon connect *in a substantive **way* posts relevant to Peirce's work. That certainly would be a valuable contribution to the forum. You may have noticed that Jon cross-posts to many lists, none of which is Peirce-related in the sense in which Ransdell described it in the quotation above. And it seems to me that some of these lists are serving principally -- if not exclusively -- as repositories of posts rather than being active discussion groups such as Peirce-L is. Since I have copied the addresses of these lists below, you might consider joining one or more of them so that you can be assured of following Jon's messages uninterruptedly. Cybernetic Communications <[email protected]>, Laws of Form <[email protected]>, Ontolog Forum <[email protected]>, Structural Modeling <[email protected]>, SysSciWG <[email protected]> Best, Gary Richmond (writings as List manager) “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:24 PM Imran Makani <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, > > Jon clearly said he indeed would be the one to provide this relevance when > you request it of him on list. > > I for one value his contributions here. > > Best, > > Imran > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 27, 2021, at 3:17 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Jon, > > JA: I don't do off-list communication. > > GR: Well, that is something new. In any event, Joe Ransdell established > the practice of writing a list participant off-list before bringing the > issue in question to the list. I follow this precedent. > > JA: If you have questions about the relevance of my posts > to Peirce's lifelong work in logic, mathematics, and > semiotics and to the development of pragmatic thought > in general, please be so kind as to ask them on List. > > No. It is you who needs to provide the relevance of your posts to > Peirce-L, not I nor anyone else. > > Best, > > Gary Richmond (writing to you about this matter for the last time on or > off-list) > > “Let everything happen to you > Beauty and terror > Just keep going > No feeling is final” > ― Rainer Maria Rilke > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:08 PM Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Gary, >> >> I don't do off-list communication. >> >> If you have questions about the relevance of my posts >> to Peirce's lifelong work in logic, mathematics, and >> semiotics and to the development of pragmatic thought >> in general, please be so kind as to ask them on List. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On 9/27/2021 3:46 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: >> > off List >> > >> > Jon, >> > >> > Please remove Peirce-L from your list of sites if your messages aren't >> > Peirce-L related in the sense in which the forum is conceived. If you >> can't >> > do that, given that I've repeatedly asked you to do so on and off List, >> > then either leave the List or we'll do it for you if you prefer. >> > >> > I've Cc'd this note to Ben Udell. >> > >> > Gary Richmond (writing off-list as moderator) >> > >> > “Let everything happen to you >> > Beauty and terror >> > Just keep going >> > No feeling is final” >> > ― Rainer Maria Rilke >> > >> > *Gary Richmond* >> > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> > *Communication Studies* >> > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:45 PM Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Cf: Minimal Negation Operators • 4 >> >> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/09/01/minimal-negation-operators-4/ >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> I'm including a more detailed definition of minimal negation operators >> >> in terms of conventional logical operations largely because readers of >> >> particular tastes have asked for it in the past. But it can easily be >> >> skipped until one has a felt need for it. Skimmed lightly, though, it >> >> can serve to illustrate a major theme in logic and mathematics, namely, >> >> the Relativity of Complexity or the Relativity of Primitivity to the >> >> basis we have chosen for constructing our conceptual superstructures. >> >> >> >> ⁂ ⁂ ⁂ >> >> >> >> Defining minimal negation operators over a more conventional basis >> >> is next in order of exposition, if not necessarily in order of every >> >> reader’s reading. For what it’s worth and against the day when it may >> >> be needed, here is a definition of minimal negations in terms of ∧, ∨, >> >> and ¬. >> >> >> >> Formal Definition >> >> ================= >> >> >> >> To express the general form of νₙ in terms of familiar operations, >> >> it helps to introduce an intermediary concept. >> >> >> >> Definition. Let the function ¬ₘ : Bⁿ → B be defined for each >> >> integer m in the interval [1, n] by the following equation. >> >> >> >> • ¬ₘ(x₁, …, xₘ, …, xₙ) = x₁ ∧ … ∧ xₘ₋₁ ∧ ¬xₘ ∧ xₘ₊₁ ∧ … ∧ xₙ. >> >> >> >> Then νₙ : Bⁿ → B is defined by the following equation. >> >> >> >> • νₙ(x₁, …, xₙ) = ¬₁(x₁, …, xₙ) ∨ … ∨ ¬ₘ(x₁, …, xₙ) ∨ … ∨ ¬ₙ(x₁, …, >> xₙ). >> >> >> >> We may take the boolean product x₁ ∙ … ∙ xₙ or the logical conjunction >> >> x₁ ∧ … ∧ xₙ to indicate the point x = (x₁, …, xₙ) in the space Bⁿ, in >> >> which case the minimal negation νₙ(x₁, …, xₙ) indicates the set of >> points >> >> in >> >> Bⁿ which differ from x in exactly one coordinate. This makes νₙ(x₁, >> …, xₙ) >> >> a discrete functional analogue of a point-omitted neighborhood in >> ordinary >> >> real analysis, more precisely, a point-omitted distance-one >> neighborhood. >> >> Viewed in that light the minimal negation operator can be recognized as >> >> a differential construction, an observation opening a very wide field. >> >> >> >> The remainder of this discussion proceeds on the algebraic convention >> >> making the plus sign (+) and the summation symbol (∑) both refer to >> >> addition mod 2. Unless otherwise noted, the boolean domain B = {0, 1} >> >> is interpreted for logic in such a way that 0 = false and 1 = true. >> >> This has the following consequences. >> >> >> >> • The operation x + y is a function equivalent to the exclusive >> >> disjunction of >> >> x and y, while its fiber of 1 is the relation of inequality >> between x >> >> and y. >> >> >> >> • The operation ∑ₘ xₘ = x₁ + … + xₙ maps the bit sequence (x₁, …, xₙ) >> >> to its parity. >> >> >> >> The following properties of the minimal negation operators >> >> νₙ : Bⁿ → B may be noted. >> >> >> >> • The function ν₂(x, y) is the same as that associated with >> >> the operation x + y and the relation x ≠ y. >> >> >> >> • In contrast, ν₃(x, y, z) is not identical to x + y + z. >> >> >> >> • More generally, the function νₙ(x₁, …, xₙ) for k > 2 >> >> is not identical to the boolean sum ∑ₘ xₘ = x₁ + … + xₙ. >> >> >> >> • The inclusive disjunctions indicated for the νₙ of more than >> >> one argument may be replaced with exclusive disjunctions without >> >> affecting the meaning since the terms in disjunction are already >> >> disjoint. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
