date:20171231

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic

2017-12-31 Thread John F Sowa


Jerry and Auke,

In the Worlds article, my primary goal was to convince readers
that a definition of modality in terms of laws and facts is
more fruitful than a definition in terms of possible worlds.

The final paragraph of that article summarizes what I was trying
to show.  (See below.)  What Peirce himself said about modality
and his Gamma graphs is fragmentary, and I don't claim to know
what he would have said in answer to your questions.

JLRC

Can you provide the names of the four subdivisions of the universe
of actualities?


Since Peirce didn't attach any names to those subdivisions, I won't
attempt to do so.  Don Roberts reproduced Peirce's diagram on p. 94
of his book on existential graphs.  But he doesn't name them either.

But by analogy with the labels Peirce assigned to the subdivisions
of possibilities and necessities, I would guess that the 3rd and 4th
subdivisions of actualities would represent something actual with
respect to an observer or to some other person.  Peirce may have had
some ideas in mind, but hadn't made a final decision.

AvB

I would say...


Maybe.  But these are issues for which we could benefit from
more easily accessible resources -- such as well organized
and cross referenced transcriptions of all of Peirce's MSS.

It would also be useful to have all of the MSS cross linked
to everything that any and all Peirce scholars have written
about any or all the MSS.

John


From the final paragraph of http://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf

The combination of semiotics with Dunn's semantics of laws and facts 
provides a theoretical foundation for modality and intentionality that 
captures more of the intended interpretation than a undefinable relation 
R over an undefined set W. An important promise of this combination is 
the ability to support multimodal reasoning as a kind of metalevel 
reasoning about the source of the laws and facts. Instead of complex 
axioms for each mode with even more complex interactions between modes, 
it enables the laws to be partitioned in a hierarchy that represents 
grades of necessity or levels of entrenchment:  logical, physical, 
economic, legal, social, cultural, or personal (Sowa 2003). Exploring 
the full implications of Peirce's semiotics is far beyond the scope of 
this article, but the outline presented here suggests a wealth of 
resources waiting to be developed.

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Auke van Breemen

Jerry, list,

 

A good question. 

 

Looking in   
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf I find:

 

Existents. This universe includes "Objects whose Being consists in their Brute 
reactions, and of, second, the Facts (reactions, events, qualities, etc.) 
concerning those Objects Every member of this Universe is either a Single 
Object subject, alike to the Principles of Contradiction and to that of 
Excluded Middle, or it is expressible by a proposition having such a singular 
subject."

 

I would say two are mentioned:

 

2. Objects whose Being consists in their Brute reactions

3. the Facts (reactions, events, qualities, etc.) concerning those Objects

 

I am inclined to speculate, and welcome alternatives:

1 could be subjective, so feeling

4 operative goals 

 

 

  Possibilitiesactualities  
 necessitated

1.  Subjective possibility  - feeling   
- compelled 
  
2.  Objective possibility   - Objects .. brute reactions
- determined  
3.  Social possibility  - Facts concerning objects  
- commanded
4.  Interrogative mode- goals   
  - rationally necessitated 

 

 

Happy new year!

 

Auke

 

 

Van: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] 
Verzonden: maandag 1 januari 2018 0:13
Aan: John F Sowa ; Peirce List 
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

 

John:

 

In For a six-page review of these issues with references,

see   http://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf .

 

You wrote:

Peirce considered three universes: actualities, possibilities, and the 
necessitated. He subdivided each universe in four ways to define 12 modes. In 
the universe of possibilities, for example, he distinguished objective 
possibility (an alethic mode), subjective possibility (epistemic), social 
possibility (deontic), and an interrogative mode, which corresponds to 
scientific inquiry by hypothesis and experiment. For the necessitated, he 
called the four subdivisions the rationally necessitated, the compelled, the 
commanded, and the determined. Most of his writings on these topics were 
unpublished, and he changed his terminology from one manuscript to the next. 
Peirce admitted that a complete analysis and classification would be “a labor 
for generations of analysts, not for one” (MS 478:165).

 

It provides the subdivisions of two of the three universes. 

Can you provide the names of the four subdivisions of the universe of 
actualities?

 

Thank you 

 

Happy New Year to All!

 

Cheers

Jerry

 

 

On Dec 31, 2017, at 9:04 AM, John F Sowa <  
s...@bestweb.net> wrote:

 

Historical note:  Aristotle claimed that necessity and possibility
are determined by the laws of nature.  Leibniz introduced possible
worlds with necessity as truth in all possible worlds, and
possibility as truth in at least one.

Carnap was a strict nominalist who followed Mach in claiming
that the laws of science are *nothing but* summaries of
observable data.  He even considered *truth* to be outside
the realm of "scientific" method.  But Tarski's model theory
convinced him that truth could be defined in observable terms.
Carnap later (1947) combined Leibniz and Tarski.

Hintikka introduced "model sets", which consisted of sets
of propositions that are true of the possible worlds.  He also
introduced an alternativity relation among model sets.

Kripke went back to sets of worlds and related the accessibility
relation (identical to Hintikka's alternativity) to the axioms
for modality that C. I. Lewis had introduced.

Nominalists preferred sets of worlds to sets of sets of propositions.
But Quine would not accept modality with either version.

But in 1973, Michael Dunn introduced a beautiful solution
that Peirce would love, but the nominalists would hate:
treat each possible world as a pair (facts, laws).

For a six-page review of these issues with references,
see   http://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf .

For more detail (26 pages), see   
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf .

 

 


 

 

Virusvrij.  

 www.avg.com 

 


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Year end note by list moderato

2017-12-31 Thread Bev Corwin

Happy New Year Gary! Thank you for all that you do for the Peirce-L. Take
care and get well soon! Don't worry about the Peirce-L'isters - They'll
just have to get by until you are better. We will miss you and looking
forward to your healthy rapid return sometime in the New Year 2018! Cheers,
Bev

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> I'm afraid the existential crises of health and home mentioned in passing
> in my last post will necessarily consume the rest of my year (perhaps
> beyond), so I won't be able to answer each of you who responded to my last
> post--at least not in what remains of 2017. So just a few words to mark the
> passing of the year.
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

John:

In For a six-page review of these issues with references,
> see http://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf  
> .

You wrote:
Peirce considered three universes: actualities, possibilities, and the 
necessitated. He subdivided each universe in four ways to define 12 modes. In 
the universe of possibilities, for example, he distinguished objective 
possibility (an alethic mode), subjective possibility (epistemic), social 
possibility (deontic), and an interrogative mode, which corresponds to 
scientific inquiry by hypothesis and experiment. For the necessitated, he 
called the four subdivisions the rationally necessitated, the compelled, the 
commanded, and the determined. Most of his writings on these topics were 
unpublished, and he changed his terminology from one manuscript to the next. 
Peirce admitted that a complete analysis and classification would be “a labor 
for generations of analysts, not for one” (MS 478:165).

It provides the subdivisions of two of the three universes. 
Can you provide the names of the four subdivisions of the universe of 
actualities?

Thank you 

Happy New Year to All!

Cheers
Jerry

> On Dec 31, 2017, at 9:04 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Historical note:  Aristotle claimed that necessity and possibility
> are determined by the laws of nature.  Leibniz introduced possible
> worlds with necessity as truth in all possible worlds, and
> possibility as truth in at least one.
> 
> Carnap was a strict nominalist who followed Mach in claiming
> that the laws of science are *nothing but* summaries of
> observable data.  He even considered *truth* to be outside
> the realm of "scientific" method.  But Tarski's model theory
> convinced him that truth could be defined in observable terms.
> Carnap later (1947) combined Leibniz and Tarski.
> 
> Hintikka introduced "model sets", which consisted of sets
> of propositions that are true of the possible worlds.  He also
> introduced an alternativity relation among model sets.
> 
> Kripke went back to sets of worlds and related the accessibility
> relation (identical to Hintikka's alternativity) to the axioms
> for modality that C. I. Lewis had introduced.
> 
> Nominalists preferred sets of worlds to sets of sets of propositions.
> But Quine would not accept modality with either version.
> 
> But in 1973, Michael Dunn introduced a beautiful solution
> that Peirce would love, but the nominalists would hate:
> treat each possible world as a pair (facts, laws).
> 
> For a six-page review of these issues with references,
> see http://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf  
> .
> 
> For more detail (26 pages), see http://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Year end note by list moderato

2017-12-31 Thread Gary Richmond

List,

I'm afraid the existential crises of health and home mentioned in passing
in my last post will necessarily consume the rest of my year (perhaps
beyond), so I won't be able to answer each of you who responded to my last
post--at least not in what remains of 2017. So just a few words to mark the
passing of the year.

I believe I've already conveyed how much I value this list, but I would
like to add how honored and truly humbled I am to serve as moderator of
Peirce-L. Yet I would principally like to say that I truly believe that
each and every member of this forum, whether active participant or
thoughtful lurker, contributes to it in important ways whether visible or
not. So thank you all!

Finally I'd like to end the year by offering three pragmatic quotations
which I've been reflecting on the last few days and hope that you find some
value in them.


Year's end is neither an end nor a beginning but a going on, with all the
wisdom that experience can instill in us. Hal Borland


Let our New Year's resolution be this: we will be there for one another as
fellow members of humanity, in the finest sense of the word. Goran Persson


And, finally, I leave you with possibly the most famous Peirce quote,
especially appropriate at the turn of the year, I think.


“Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order
to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with
what you already incline to think. . .” CSP


The corollary Peirce gives to this is, perhaps, even more famous.

So to all a Happy New Year, one full of many good and fruitful things,
including lively philosophical conversation in this forum!

Best wishes,

Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)

[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

2017-12-31 Thread kirstima


Gary f,

Sorry for inexact expressions. I should have made a distinction between 
just interpreting a quote and going beyond it. Paraphrasing is 
customarily marked with expressions like "as XXX says elsewhere...".


If I had problems with understanding where you were paraphrasing Peirce, 
and where you were stating your own inferences,  I was just one reader 
amongst many. Why the tone?


My point has been that words and ideas are not in any kind of identity 
relation. And that the relation between signs and meanings is a tricky 
question, not a simple one.


If you disagree, why can't we just agree to disagree?

Surely you are well aware that Peirce did not mean something like a 
college chemistry lab with laboratory and seminary philosophy.


He does offer many very detailed precepts for thought experiments as 
well as practical everyday experimentations he conducted himself, many 
of them for many years, even decades.


Most of these I have conducted myself. Following his descriptions as 
accurately as I can. Very often Peirce points out that everyone should 
do so. In order to find out oneself. Instead of only following the 
method of authority. - Which is OK, if and after


I really meant to thank youn and wish you a happy new year.

Best wishes anyway, Kirsti




g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 31.12.2017 22:29:

Kirsti, you quoted my post in yours and commented that you “cannot
understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them in
what follows.”

It’s quite simple: The part enclosed in quotation marks is a direct
quote of Peirce’s exact words, and the rest is my own words. This is
what I always do in my posts, whenever I am commenting on something
Peirce (or anyone) wrote; I “try to keep quotes and interpretations
so marked that any reader can tell which is which” (quoting you, in
that case). In my post, I included the link to my blog so that anyone
who wanted the exact source citation could find it there. I don’t
see the problem with that.

I also don’t see how your claim — that Peirce’s own choice of
term, such as “phaneron,” is “inconsistent with his deeper
views” — can be tested in any laboratory, as you appear to
suggest. I don’t know any way of comprehending Peirce’s “deeper
views” about matters except to study what he wrote about them, on
the DEFAULT assumption that he meant exactly what he wrote, and “it
is quite indifferent whether it be regarded as having to do with
thought or with language, the wrapping of thought, since thought, like
an onion, is composed of nothing but wrappings” (Peirce, EP2:460).
Perhaps you do have a better way of gaining insight into Peirce’s
deeper thoughts, but if so, I think it’s up to you to demonstrate it
rather than ask the rest of us to take it on faith.

And Happy New Year to you too!

Gary f.

-Original Message-
From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
Sent: 31-Dec-17 10:25
To: g...@gnusystems.ca
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

Gary f, list

My source on Eucleides was Grattan-Guinness (The Fontana history of
the mathematical sciences) and my thirty years old notes on the topic.
(& Liddell and Scott, of course.)

It is important to keep in mind that no such divisions (or

classifications) between sciences that are taken for granted today did
not exist in ancient times. - Still, Eucleides was studied by
mathematicians for centuries. It was taken for granted. Up till
non-Euclidean math. Even the Bible came much, much later.

Meaning is context-dependent, that much we all agree. We have signs
from old times, no dispute on that. But do we have meanings?

I have problems with the following:

GARY f.: My


answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought,



implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to,



http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1] [1]: “upon a

continuous line


there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only

room


for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a point

on the


line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if the line has

a


beginning and end, then it has those two points



(discontinuities) already.


I cannot understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo
them in what follows.

Peirce took up in several contexts his point of marking any points and
thus breaking continuity. He took care to set down rules for (logical)
acceptability for doing so.

In order to understand his meaning three triads are needed.
Possibility, virtuality and actuality makes one of them. (But only one
of them.)

CSP wrote on Ethics of Terminology. - Did he follow these ethical
rules?

- I'd say YES and NO. To the despair of his readers he chanced his
terminology over the decaces very, very often. But it was HIS to
change, in order to accommondate with renewed understanding of his
whole conceptual system, his new findings along the way in making it
move...

I firmly believe he had a reason

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear list,



Here are selected passages from Moss that pertains to our current
conversation on virtuous interpretation and action.  Of late, I have begun
to stop using quotation marks because Google and *up to us* to find out.

_



Aristotle clearly takes himself to be in broad agreement with Plato in
identifying *logos* as what transforms a quasi- or proto-virtuous state
into genuine virtue.



Parallels between phronêsis and two other intellectual excellences in
Aristotle’s system:  technê (craft) and epistêmê (science).  The *EN*
characterizes all three as being “with logos,”..



..what transforms Platonic quasi-virtue into full virtue, and what
transforms both Platonic and Aristotelian inferior epistemic states like
experience into technê, epistêmê, or other forms of wisdom, is not a rule,
proportion, ratio, or form, nor is it Reason itself;   instead, it is a
particular kind of deliverance of Reason.



It is an *explanatory account* – an account of the *aitia*, cause or
explanation, that

underlies the facts available to the proto-virtuous, or to the layman.



*[Flattery] isn’t craft, but mere experience, because it has no logos of
the nature of whatever things it applies [or to what] it applies them, so
that it’s unable to state (eipein) the cause (aitia) of each thing.  And I
refuse to call anything without a logos (alogon) craft. (Gorg. 465a)*



*quid sit*..


Nothing is complete (*teleion*) which has no end (*telos*); and the end is
a limit.



Best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:

> Dear list,
>
>
>
> Why Luke and not Matthew?.. Why not John?
>
>
>
> *"In the beginning was the **λόγος**". *
>
> *This is the very word used by the emperor: *
>
> *God acts, **συ**̀**ν* *λόγω**, with logos.*
>
>
>
> *I don't call a thing without logos** [**alogon**], a techne.*
>
>
>
> *quid sit deus*.. what would God be?
>
>
> *Blessed be the Lord God of Israel.. *
>
> *as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old..*
>
>
>
> Best for the New Year,
>
> Jerry R
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Wendy Wheeler 
> wrote:
>
>> It’s okay, Helmut.
>>
>> Happy New Year everyone.
>>
>> Wendy
>>
>>
>> On 31 Dec 2017, at 18:23, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>> Jon,
>> Yes, Ive read that too: After the three wise men had left, an angel told
>> Mary and Joseph that Herod wants to kill the child, and they should flee to
>> Egypt, which they did. But the portray was "taken" in the barn, so they
>> were not on their way yet, so technically they were not refugees already,
>> only the next day or so. But maybe to portray them as refugees is justified
>> with the artist´s license to hop over this small time gap? I think, the
>> pope did not make the same mistake like me, but the journalist writing
>> about the pope did. Anyway, Wendy is right by saying they were not refugees
>> when the portray was "taken", and the sign becomes more complicated with
>> this aspect of artist´s license having to be included. Maybe it increases
>> the number of required pages to more than 20?
>> Happy new year,
>> Helmut
>>
>> 31. Dezember 2017 um 18:32 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>>
>> Helmut, List:
>>
>> There are two accounts of the Holy Family in the Bible.  Matthew includes
>> the flight to Egypt to escape Herod after the visit of the Magi, which is
>> presumably what the artist who portrayed them as refugees had in mind.
>> Luke omits that particular episode.
>>
>> FYI, www.biblegateway.com is a handy site for looking up Bible passages,
>> especially since it includes various English versions and numerous other
>> languages.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Helmut Raulien 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Uh! Ive looked it up, and apologize. I am embarassed, why did I answer
>>> before looking it up? Now I dont see the point in the nativity picture
>>> anymore, an agree with Gary not to talk about it anymore. Sorry again,
>>> Wendy, happy new year!
>>> Wendy,
>>> but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she
>>> had told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you
>>> are right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me,
>>> I (at the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not
>>> looked the matter up in the bible, though.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>> 30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
>>> *Von:* "Wendy Wheeler" 
>>> Helmut,
>>>
>>> The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of
>>> Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the
>>> first born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

2017-12-31 Thread gnox

Kirsti, you quoted my post in yours and commented that you “cannot understand 
the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them in what follows.”

 

It’s quite simple: The part enclosed in quotation marks is a direct quote of 
Peirce’s exact words, and the rest is my own words. This is what I always do in 
my posts, whenever I am commenting on something Peirce (or anyone) wrote; I 
“try to keep quotes and interpretations so marked that any reader can tell 
which is which” (quoting you, in that case). In my post, I included the link to 
my blog so that anyone who wanted the exact source citation could find it 
there. I don’t see the problem with that.

 

I also don’t see how your claim — that Peirce’s own choice of term, such as 
“phaneron,” is “inconsistent with his deeper views” — can be tested in any 
laboratory, as you appear to suggest. I don’t know any way of comprehending 
Peirce’s “deeper views” about matters except to study what he wrote about them, 
on the default assumption that he meant exactly what he wrote, and “it is quite 
indifferent whether it be regarded as having to do with thought or with 
language, the wrapping of thought, since thought, like an onion, is composed of 
nothing but wrappings” (Peirce, EP2:460). Perhaps you do have a better way of 
gaining insight into Peirce’s deeper thoughts, but if so, I think it’s up to 
you to demonstrate it rather than ask the rest of us to take it on faith.

 

And Happy New Year to you too!

 

Gary f.

 

-Original Message-
From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] 
Sent: 31-Dec-17 10:25
To: g...@gnusystems.ca
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

 

Gary f, list

 

My source on Eucleides was Grattan-Guinness (The Fontana history of the 
mathematical sciences) and my thirty years old notes on the topic. (& Liddell 
and Scott, of course.)

 

It is important to keep in mind that no such divisions (or

classifications) between sciences that are taken for granted today did not 
exist in ancient times. - Still, Eucleides was studied by mathematicians for 
centuries. It was taken for granted. Up till non-Euclidean math. Even the Bible 
came much, much later.

 

Meaning is context-dependent, that much we all agree. We have signs from old 
times, no dispute on that. But do we have meanings?

 

I have problems with the following:

 

GARY f.: My

> answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought, 

> implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to, 

>   
> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]: “upon a continuous line 

> there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only room 

> for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a point on the 

> line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if the line has a 

> beginning and end, then it has those two points

> (discontinuities) already.

 

I cannot understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them in 
what follows.

 

Peirce took up in several contexts his point of marking any points and thus 
breaking continuity. He took care to set down rules for (logical) acceptability 
for doing so.

 

In order to understand his meaning three triads are needed. Possibility, 
virtuality and actuality makes one of them. (But only one of them.)

 

CSP wrote on Ethics of Terminology. - Did he follow these ethical rules? 

- I'd say YES and NO. To the despair of his readers he chanced his terminology 
over the decaces very, very often. But it was HIS to change, in order to 
accommondate with renewed understanding of his whole conceptual system, his new 
findings along the way in making it move...

 

I firmly believe he had a reason every time for those changes. BUT he also 
experimented with words he took into a kind of test driving for his concepts. 
Such as "phaneron". An experiment doomed to fail.

 

Why do I believe so? - I have never read him explicitly saying so. But the term 
(etymology etc) did get the idea twisted in such ways which were inconsistent 
with his deeper views. - So when I read those texts by him using "phaneron", I 
took note of the year and looked forward to see him stop using it.

 

It not a job for me to search whether he did or not. It is job for seminary 
minded philosophers. Not for the laboratory minded ones.

 

I wish to take up Ethics of Interpretation in a similar spirit. In order to 
make our ideas more clear, it may be good to try to keep quotes and 
interpretations so marked that any reader can tell which is which.

 

It is an impossible task, I know. Just as impossible to any human being as is 
Christian ethics. But a very good guideline to keep in mind & to follow as best 
one can.

 

The links in any post may get read or not. - It takes too much time to read all 
those offered.

 

What cannot be included in the verbal response, I find informative. 

Still, I may not have the time

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear list,



Why Luke and not Matthew?.. Why not John?



*"In the beginning was the **λόγος**". *

*This is the very word used by the emperor: *

*God acts, **συ**̀**ν* *λόγω**, with logos.*



*I don't call a thing without logos** [**alogon**], a techne.*



*quid sit deus*.. what would God be?


*Blessed be the Lord God of Israel.. *

*as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old..*



Best for the New Year,

Jerry R

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Wendy Wheeler 
wrote:

> It’s okay, Helmut.
>
> Happy New Year everyone.
>
> Wendy
>
>
> On 31 Dec 2017, at 18:23, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
> Jon,
> Yes, Ive read that too: After the three wise men had left, an angel told
> Mary and Joseph that Herod wants to kill the child, and they should flee to
> Egypt, which they did. But the portray was "taken" in the barn, so they
> were not on their way yet, so technically they were not refugees already,
> only the next day or so. But maybe to portray them as refugees is justified
> with the artist´s license to hop over this small time gap? I think, the
> pope did not make the same mistake like me, but the journalist writing
> about the pope did. Anyway, Wendy is right by saying they were not refugees
> when the portray was "taken", and the sign becomes more complicated with
> this aspect of artist´s license having to be included. Maybe it increases
> the number of required pages to more than 20?
> Happy new year,
> Helmut
>
> 31. Dezember 2017 um 18:32 Uhr
> *Von:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>
> Helmut, List:
>
> There are two accounts of the Holy Family in the Bible.  Matthew includes
> the flight to Egypt to escape Herod after the visit of the Magi, which is
> presumably what the artist who portrayed them as refugees had in mind.
> Luke omits that particular episode.
>
> FYI, www.biblegateway.com is a handy site for looking up Bible passages,
> especially since it includes various English versions and numerous other
> languages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Helmut Raulien 
> wrote:
>>
>> Uh! Ive looked it up, and apologize. I am embarassed, why did I answer
>> before looking it up? Now I dont see the point in the nativity picture
>> anymore, an agree with Gary not to talk about it anymore. Sorry again,
>> Wendy, happy new year!
>> Wendy,
>> but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she
>> had told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you
>> are right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me,
>> I (at the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not
>> looked the matter up in the bible, though.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>> 30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Wendy Wheeler" 
>> Helmut,
>>
>> The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of
>> Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the
>> first born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew, heard of the
>> birth in Bethlehem from the three wise men who came to witness it.
>>
>> I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.
>>
>> Wendy
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>> Wendy,
>> if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If
>> this does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also
>> compared them with the contemporary refugees.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>> 30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Wendy Wheeler" 
>> Dear Helmut (and list),
>>
>> I’ve come to this discussion both late and rather incompletely. I haven’t
>> read every contribution closely. Can I point out, though, and in case
>> nobody else has, that the Holy Family were not refugees. They were
>> travelling to Joseph’s birthplace in obedience to the requirements of the
>> Roman census. They returned home afterwards. The Trondheim Nativity scene
>> under discussion here thus looks like an iconic sign used to mislead.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Wendy Wheeler
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L"
> in the BODY of the message. More at 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
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Wendy Wheeler

It’s okay, Helmut.

Happy New Year everyone.

Wendy


> On 31 Dec 2017, at 18:23, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> Jon,
> Yes, Ive read that too: After the three wise men had left, an angel told Mary 
> and Joseph that Herod wants to kill the child, and they should flee to Egypt, 
> which they did. But the portray was "taken" in the barn, so they were not on 
> their way yet, so technically they were not refugees already, only the next 
> day or so. But maybe to portray them as refugees is justified with the 
> artist´s license to hop over this small time gap? I think, the pope did not 
> make the same mistake like me, but the journalist writing about the pope did. 
> Anyway, Wendy is right by saying they were not refugees when the portray was 
> "taken", and the sign becomes more complicated with this aspect of artist´s 
> license having to be included. Maybe it increases the number of required 
> pages to more than 20?
> Happy new year,
> Helmut
>  
> 31. Dezember 2017 um 18:32 Uhr
> Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>  
> Helmut, List:
>  
> There are two accounts of the Holy Family in the Bible.  Matthew includes the 
> flight to Egypt to escape Herod after the visit of the Magi, which is 
> presumably what the artist who portrayed them as refugees had in mind.  Luke 
> omits that particular episode.
>  
> FYI, www.biblegateway.com  is a handy site for 
> looking up Bible passages, especially since it includes various English 
> versions and numerous other languages.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 
>  
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Helmut Raulien  > wrote:
> Uh! Ive looked it up, and apologize. I am embarassed, why did I answer before 
> looking it up? Now I dont see the point in the nativity picture anymore, an 
> agree with Gary not to talk about it anymore. Sorry again, Wendy, happy new 
> year!
> Wendy,
> but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she had 
> told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you are 
> right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me, I (at 
> the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not looked 
> the matter up in the bible, though.
> Best,
> Helmut
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
> Von: "Wendy Wheeler"  >
> Helmut,
>  
> The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of 
> Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the first 
> born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew, heard of the birth in 
> Bethlehem from the three wise men who came to witness it.
>  
> I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.
>  
> Wendy
>  
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien  > wrote:
> Wendy,
> if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If this 
> does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also compared them 
> with the contemporary refugees.
> Best,
> Helmut
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
> Von: "Wendy Wheeler"  >
> Dear Helmut (and list),
>  
> I’ve come to this discussion both late and rather incompletely. I haven’t 
> read every contribution closely. Can I point out, though, and in case nobody 
> else has, that the Holy Family were not refugees. They were travelling to 
> Joseph’s birthplace in obedience to the requirements of the Roman census. 
> They returned home afterwards. The Trondheim Nativity scene under discussion 
> here thus looks like an iconic sign used to mislead.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Wendy Wheeler
>  
> Sent from my iPhone
> - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
> the message. More at 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Helmut Raulien

Jon,

Yes, Ive read that too: After the three wise men had left, an angel told Mary and Joseph that Herod wants to kill the child, and they should flee to Egypt, which they did. But the portray was "taken" in the barn, so they were not on their way yet, so technically they were not refugees already, only the next day or so. But maybe to portray them as refugees is justified with the artist´s license to hop over this small time gap? I think, the pope did not make the same mistake like me, but the journalist writing about the pope did. Anyway, Wendy is right by saying they were not refugees when the portray was "taken", and the sign becomes more complicated with this aspect of artist´s license having to be included. Maybe it increases the number of required pages to more than 20?

Happy new year,

Helmut

31. Dezember 2017 um 18:32 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt"

Helmut, List:

There are two accounts of the Holy Family in the Bible. Matthew includes the flight to Egypt to escape Herod after the visit of the Magi, which is presumably what the artist who portrayed them as refugees had in mind. Luke omits that particular episode.

FYI, www.biblegateway.com is a handy site for looking up Bible passages, especially since it includes various English versions and numerous other languages.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Uh! Ive looked it up, and apologize. I am embarassed, why did I answer before looking it up? Now I dont see the point in the nativity picture anymore, an agree with Gary not to talk about it anymore. Sorry again, Wendy, happy new year!

Wendy,

but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she had told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you are right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me, I (at the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not looked the matter up in the bible, though.

Best,

Helmut

30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
Von: "Wendy Wheeler"

Helmut,

The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the first born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew, heard of the birth in Bethlehem from the three wise men who came to witness it.

I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.

Wendy
Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Wendy,

if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If this does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also compared them with the contemporary refugees.

Best,

Helmut

30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
Von: "Wendy Wheeler"

Dear Helmut (and list),

I’ve come to this discussion both late and rather incompletely. I haven’t read every contribution closely. Can I point out, though, and in case nobody else has, that the Holy Family were not refugees. They were travelling to Joseph’s birthplace in obedience to the requirements of the Roman census. They returned home afterwards. The Trondheim Nativity scene under discussion here thus looks like an iconic sign used to mislead.

Best wishes,

Wendy Wheeler
Sent from my iPhone

- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Helmut, List:

There are two accounts of the Holy Family in the Bible.  Matthew includes
the flight to Egypt to escape Herod after the visit of the Magi, which is
presumably what the artist who portrayed them as refugees had in mind.
Luke omits that particular episode.

FYI, www.biblegateway.com is a handy site for looking up Bible passages,
especially since it includes various English versions and numerous other
languages.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
> Uh! Ive looked it up, and apologize. I am embarassed, why did I answer
> before looking it up? Now I dont see the point in the nativity picture
> anymore, an agree with Gary not to talk about it anymore. Sorry again,
> Wendy, happy new year!
> Wendy,
> but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she
> had told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you
> are right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me,
> I (at the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not
> looked the matter up in the bible, though.
> Best,
> Helmut
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wendy Wheeler" 
> Helmut,
>
> The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of
> Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the
> first born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew, heard of the
> birth in Bethlehem from the three wise men who came to witness it.
>
> I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.
>
> Wendy
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
> Wendy,
> if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If
> this does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also
> compared them with the contemporary refugees.
> Best,
> Helmut
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wendy Wheeler" 
> Dear Helmut (and list),
>
> I’ve come to this discussion both late and rather incompletely. I haven’t
> read every contribution closely. Can I point out, though, and in case
> nobody else has, that the Holy Family were not refugees. They were
> travelling to Joseph’s birthplace in obedience to the requirements of the
> Roman census. They returned home afterwards. The Trondheim Nativity scene
> under discussion here thus looks like an iconic sign used to mislead.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Wendy Wheeler
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Helmut Raulien

Wendy,

Best,

Helmut

30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
Von: "Wendy Wheeler"

Helmut,

I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.

Wendy
Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Wendy,

if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If this does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also compared them with the contemporary refugees.

Best,

Helmut

30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
Von: "Wendy Wheeler"

Dear Helmut (and list),

Best wishes,

Wendy Wheeler
Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Dec 2017, at 16:53, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Edwina,

Maybe Ben should better have written "One result is that the refugee culture is now a continuing source of divinity", instead of "the", but in any case she did not say that it is the only source, which would, according to conquerer´s logic, give the conquerer the right to conquer. A logic of which I donot think, that it is Ben´s logic too. So perhaps you did read too much into something?

And what about me reading the argument "Christians should care about refugees, because the holy family were refugees too" into the said piece of art? Do you thing that too would be an overinterpretation?

Best,

Helmut

30. Dezember 2017 um 17:20 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"

Ben, list:

Ben - you wrote:

"The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to drain the symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific reference to a unique event, by appropriating its meaning to the generalized situation of all refugees--particularly millions of refugees today. Thus it drastically changes the symbol from one of specific meaning and cultural relevance, particularly its unique religious importance, to something general and political in nature. One result is that the refugee culture is now the continuing source of divinity, rather than a singular event in history. One culture appropriating the symbol of the Holy Family for itself, disconnected to either its original meaning or its original cultural message to a different culture"

The above outline seems to me to be an action of open rejection of the values of the host culture, and inserting the refugee population as the 'divine' or 'to-be-worshipped' culture. Your analogy to conquering cultures destroying the culture of the conquered - suggests that the refugees have conquered Christian Europe. Is that your analysis?

I think one can read too much into these images...and will stop commenting.

Edwina

On Sat 30/12/17 10:56 AM , Ben Novak trevriz...@gmail.com sent:

Dear All:

I had really hoped that Peirce scholars might help in analyzing this simple example, for it is an example of a far larger set of issues.

First, why is it, of all the nativity scenes created around the world, that this one has received so much attention?

I am particularly interested because I was involved for several years with the Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural Property, and the United Nations Treaty for the Protection of Cultural Property, and attended several conferences in Vienna on the subject. One observation: in any conflict, the destruction of the cultural property of the other side seems to be a major objective in most wars, as a means of demoralizing the enemy. As a result, in addition to the human casualties, the destruction of cultural property is also often a major casualty.

Part of any war, whether violently fought, or otherwise, is war on the opponent's culture. This may take the form of outright

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Auke van Breemen

John,

Thanks, the text behind the links appears to be interesting. Zeman got me 
thinking about tinctures and sheets.  Your http://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf 
has a lot to offer.

Best,

Auke

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Verzonden: zondag 31 december 2017 16:05
Aan: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Onderwerp: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

On 12/31/2017 7:14 AM, Auke van Breemen wrote:
> I am unsure about the place of modality, but maybe it just boils down 
> to a firstness and secondness view on the issue.

Historical note:  Aristotle claimed that necessity and possibility are 
determined by the laws of nature.  Leibniz introduced possible worlds with 
necessity as truth in all possible worlds, and possibility as truth in at least 
one.

Carnap was a strict nominalist who followed Mach in claiming that the laws of 
science are *nothing but* summaries of observable data.  He even considered 
*truth* to be outside the realm of "scientific" method.  But Tarski's model 
theory convinced him that truth could be defined in observable terms.
Carnap later (1947) combined Leibniz and Tarski.

Hintikka introduced "model sets", which consisted of sets of propositions that 
are true of the possible worlds.  He also introduced an alternativity relation 
among model sets.

Kripke went back to sets of worlds and related the accessibility relation 
(identical to Hintikka's alternativity) to the axioms for modality that C. I. 
Lewis had introduced.

Nominalists preferred sets of worlds to sets of sets of propositions.
But Quine would not accept modality with either version.

But in 1973, Michael Dunn introduced a beautiful solution that Peirce would 
love, but the nominalists would hate:
treat each possible world as a pair (facts, laws).

For a six-page review of these issues with references, see 
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf .

For more detail (26 pages), see http://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf .

John

---
Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
http://www.avg.com

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

2017-12-31 Thread kirstima


Jeffrey, list,

A beutiful example of ethics of interpretation you offered, Jeffrey. 
Thanks.


With quotes from Collected Papers my sincere wish is that the year of 
writing is mentioned, whenever possible. Those are to be found in the 
small footnotes.


Peirce was not just a corpuscular entity, his thinking developed over 
time and he did change his views, although never his most basic ones.


Best, Kirsti

Jeffrey Brian Downard kirjoitti 22.12.2017 20:33:

Hello Gary F, John S, Helmut, Kirsti, List,

I take John to be asking a good question about whether or how the
part/whole distinction might or might not apply to the account of
relations and relationships as it is applied in the normative science
of semiotics. Given the context of our discussion, we can ask similar
questions about how the distinction should be applied in the formal
logic of the EG.

In asking "what practical difference would it make," I take John to be
asking the very same kind of thing that Peirce asked in his account of
relations and relationships when he moves from the first (i.e.,
familiarity) and second (logical) grades of clarity, to a third
pragmatic grade of clarity (see _The Logic of Relatives_ starting at
CP 3.456 and also 6.318 below).

Starting with the texts, I see that Peirce applies the distinction in
a number of places to the account of relations and relationships. Here
are several relevant passages (note: words both underlined and in bold
are my emphasis):

1. CP 2.316. Let us now proceed to compare the conclusions from the
abstract

definition of a Dicisign with the facts about propositions. The first
conclusion is that every proposition contains a Subject and a
Predicate, the former representing (or being) an Index of the Primary
Object, or Correlate of the relation represented, the latter
representing (or being) an Icon of the Dicisign in some respect.
Before inquiring whether every proposition has such PARTS, let us see
whether the descriptions given of them are accurate, when there are
such PARTS. The proposition "Cain kills Abel" has two subjects "Cain"
and "Abel" and relates as much to the real Objects of one of these as
to that of the other. But it may be regarded as primarily relating to
the Dyad composed of Cain, as first, and of Abel, as second member.
This Pair is a single individual object having this relation to Cain
and to Abel, that its existence consists in the existence of Cain and
in the existence of Abel and in nothing more. The Pair, though its
existence thus depends on Cain's existence and on Abel's, is,
nevertheless, just as truly existent as they severally are. The Dyad
is not precisely the Pair. The Dyad is a mental Diagram consisting of
two images of two objects, one existentially connected with one member
of the pair, the other with the other; the one having attached to it,
as representing it, a Symbol whose meaning is "First," and the other a
Symbol whose meaning is "Second." Thus, this diagram, the Dyad,
represents Indices of Cain and Abel, respectively; and thus the
subject conforms to our conclusion.

2. CP 4.173 A part of a collection called its whole is a collection
such that whatever is u of the part is u of the whole, but something
that is u of the whole is not u of the part. (174) It is convenient to
use this locution; namely, instead of saying A is in the relation, r,
to B, we may say A is an r to B, or of B; or, if we wish to reverse
the order of mentioning A and B, we may say B is r'd by A. If a
relation, r , is such that nothing is r to two different things, and
nothing is r'd by two different things, so that some things in the
universe are perhaps r to nothing while all the rest are r, each to
its own distinct correlate, and there are some things perhaps to which
nothing is r, but all the rest have each a single thing that is r to
it, then I call r a one-to-one relation. If there be a one-to-one
relation, r, such that every unit of one collection is r to a unit of
a second collection, while every unit of the second collection is r'd
by a unit of the first collection, those two collections are commonly
said to be in a one-to-one correspondence with one another. . . .

3. CP 2.311 This latter Object may be distinguished as the Primary
Object, the other being termed the Secondary Object. The Dicisign in
so far as it is the relate of the existential relation which is the
Secondary Object of the Dicisign, can evidently not be the entire
Dicisign. It is at once a PART of the Object and a PART of the
Interpretant of the Dicisign. Since the Dicisign is represented in its
Interpretant to be an Index of a complexus as such, it must be
represented in that same Interpretant to be composed of two PARTS,
corresponding respectively to its Object and to itself [the Dicisign].
That is to say, in order to understand the Dicisign, it must be
regarded as composed of two such PARTS whether it be in itself so
composed or not. It is difficult to see how this can be, unless it
really have two such

Re: Chirality (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4)

2017-12-31 Thread kirstima


Jerry, list,

JERRY:
"Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy" is a mystery to me.
Was he arguing for the Boscowitz atoms derived from vortices?"


No mystery to me what CSP meant with "corpuscular philosphy". - The 
problem with your question lies in "Exactly what..." - It (logically ) 
demands some kind of an exact (verbal) definition. Such cannot be given.


Definitely it was not (just) about Boscowitz.

Still, I find it silly to ponder what CSP may have or not have known at 
his time. - What are theories for? They are for reaching beyond 
available information. Philosophical theories especially are (or should 
be) for making clear what must be, what may be, and what cannot be.


There you have it. In a nutshell. This is a logical triad no new 
information or data may ever break down. All exact definitions must, of 
course, be accommondated to this logical triad together with new data or 
information, which consist of some experimental results. which - if 
brand new - have not been to hold in the long run OR with a wider view.




Best, Kirsti



Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 22.12.2017 18:03:

List, John:


On Dec 19, 2017, at 10:10 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:

Jerry,

Your discussion and references about chirality are convincing.
But they go beyond issues that Peirce would have known in his day.
I think that he was using issues about chirality as examples
for making a stronger claim:


For example, in his lecture on phenomenology, (EP2, 159), ends
with a discussion of chirality and the laws of motion
(Right—handed and Left-handed screws)

“There, then, is a physical phenomenon absolute inexplicable by
mechanical action. This single instance suffices to overthrow the
corpuscular philosophy.”


By the end of the 19th century, the general consensus in physics
was that all the major problems had been solved. But the first
decade of the 20th c. shattered their complacency.

If Peirce had access to a university library with the latest
journals, he might have found stronger arguments to "overthrow
the corpuscular philosophy."

John


Your response deserves a longer reply.

But, for the moment, one brief comment.
Here is a recent reference from the the Royal Society journal:

Review article: Spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking and origin of
biological homochirality
Josep M. Ribó, David Hochberg, Joaquim Crusats, Zoubir El-Hachemi and
Albert Moyano
J. R. Soc. Interface 14:20170699; doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0699
(published December 13, 2017)
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699 [1]

It discusses the central role of the development of chirality in
emergence of life.
CSP concerns were well founded and remain a profound research problem
to this day.

The issue of chirality effectively blocks the mathematization of
natural sorts and kinds using physical laws alone.
Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy” is a mystery to
me.
Was he arguing for the Boscowitz atoms derived from vortices?

At a minimum, CSP was arguing against a universal law of mechanics.
Or, was he merely arguing against the putatively universality of the
newly-defined laws of thermodynamics (entropy?)

Whatever he was arguing for or against, the chiral tetrahedral carbon
atom, as a well-defined natural geometrical object that was
irreducible to a triad, posed a major conundrum for him (and all
others) who seek to construct a universe in simpler terms.

Cheer

Jerry



Links:
--
[1] http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699?etoc



-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

2017-12-31 Thread kirstima


Gary f, list

My source on Eucleides was Grattan-Guinness (The Fontana history of the 
mathematical sciences) and my thirty years old notes on the topic. (& 
Liddell and Scott, of course.)


It is important to keep in mind that no such divisions (or 
classifications) between sciences that are taken for granted today did 
not exist in ancient times. - Still, Eucleides was studied by 
mathematicians for centuries. It was taken for granted. Up till 
non-Euclidean math. Even the Bible came much, much later.


Meaning is context-dependent, that much we all agree. We have signs from 
old times, no dispute on that. But do we have meanings?


I have problems with the following:

GARY f.: My

answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought,
implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to,
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]: “upon a continuous
line there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only
room for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a
point on the line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if
the line has a beginning and end, then it has those two points
(discontinuities) already.


I cannot understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them 
in what follows.


Peirce took up in several contexts his point of marking any points and 
thus breaking continuity. He took care to set down rules for (logical) 
acceptability for doing so.


In order to understand his meaning three triads are needed. Possibility, 
virtuality and actuality makes one of them. (But only one of them.)


CSP wrote on Ethics of Terminology. - Did he follow these ethical rules? 
- I'd say YES and NO. To the despair of his readers he chanced his 
terminology over the decaces very, very often. But it was HIS to change, 
in order to accommondate with renewed understanding of his whole 
conceptual system, his new findings along the way in making it move...


I firmly believe he had a reason every time for those changes. BUT he 
also experimented with words he took into a kind of test driving for his 
concepts. Such as "phaneron". An experiment doomed to fail.


Why do I believe so? - I have never read him explicitly saying so. But 
the term (etymology etc) did get the idea twisted in such ways which 
were inconsistent with his deeper views. - So when I read those texts by 
him using "phaneron", I took note of the year and looked forward to see 
him stop using it.


It not a job for me to search whether he did or not. It is job for 
seminary minded philosophers. Not for the laboratory minded ones.


I wish to take up Ethics of Interpretation in a similar spirit. In order 
to make our ideas more clear, it may be good to try to keep quotes and 
interpretations so marked that any reader can tell which is which.


It is an impossible task, I know. Just as impossible to any human being 
as is Christian ethics. But a very good guideline to keep in mind & to 
follow as best one can.


The links in any post may get read or not. - It takes too much time to 
read all those offered.


What cannot be included in the verbal response, I find informative. 
Still, I may not have the time at my disposal to open them.


Looking forward to forthcoming chapters in Lowell lectures. My thanks 
for the most valuable job you are doing Gary f.


Best regards, Kirsti





g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 22.12.2017 14:50:

Kirsti, John, list,

My source for the usage of SEMEION was Liddell and Scott (which can be
searched online). As John says, the primary meaning is “mark”. My
answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought,
implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to,
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]: “upon a continuous
line there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only
room for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a
point on the line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if
the line has a beginning and end, then it has those two points
(discontinuities) already.

I was suggesting an analogy to a sign: for instance, you can say that
a dicisign has subject(s) and predicate, but in late Peircean
semeiotics, the analysis into these “parts” is somewhat arbitrary,
and in some cases, so is the choice of whether it has one
“subject” or several. The more “complete” a sign is, the more
the element of continuity (or Thirdness) is predominant in it, and
thus the more room there is in it for POSSIBILITIES of parts, i.e. the
more opportunity for analyzing it into “partial signs.” Sorry for
being so elliptical in my post, but that was my point (if you’ll
pardon the expression). I have a very unPeircean fondness for
conciseness.

By the way, the manuscript of Lowell 4 has a very detailed and
previously unpublished explanation of (hypostatic) abstractions such
as “dormitive virtue”, so that may be of use for continuing your
recent discussion of abstraction, when we reach that point in the next
lecture.

Gary f.

[PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread John F Sowa


On 12/31/2017 7:14 AM, Auke van Breemen wrote:

I am unsure about the place of modality, but maybe it just
boils down to a firstness and secondness view on the issue.


Historical note:  Aristotle claimed that necessity and possibility
are determined by the laws of nature.  Leibniz introduced possible
worlds with necessity as truth in all possible worlds, and
possibility as truth in at least one.

Carnap was a strict nominalist who followed Mach in claiming
that the laws of science are *nothing but* summaries of
observable data.  He even considered *truth* to be outside
the realm of "scientific" method.  But Tarski's model theory
convinced him that truth could be defined in observable terms.
Carnap later (1947) combined Leibniz and Tarski.

Hintikka introduced "model sets", which consisted of sets
of propositions that are true of the possible worlds.  He also
introduced an alternativity relation among model sets.

Kripke went back to sets of worlds and related the accessibility
relation (identical to Hintikka's alternativity) to the axioms
for modality that C. I. Lewis had introduced.

Nominalists preferred sets of worlds to sets of sets of propositions.
But Quine would not accept modality with either version.

But in 1973, Michael Dunn introduced a beautiful solution
that Peirce would love, but the nominalists would hate:
treat each possible world as a pair (facts, laws).

For a six-page review of these issues with references,
see http://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf .

For more detail (26 pages), see http://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf .

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List

Thank you - A really excellent letter - Sets us all up for the New
Year.

First - I concur with the caution about Morris, who provided in my
view, a simple mechanical outline of metaphoric signification. Rather
similar to the Saussurian frame where 'this' stands for 'that'.
Nothing at all to do with the Peircean analysis which is, as Gary R
points out, a dynamic perspective about the evolution of
consciousnessor, as I'd prefer...the evolution of Mind [for Mind
is not always 'conscious'.].

I consider that the Sign [capital S] is an irreducible triad and
thus, confining its definition to ONE relation, that between the
Representamen and the Dynamic Object - which can be termed: Iconic;
Indexical; Symbolicmisses the vital other actions of the triad;
namely, that of the Representamen [qualisign, sinsign, legisign] and
the actions between the Representamen and the Interpretant [ rheme,
dicent, argument]. The Peircean Sign cannot be reduced to any of its
so-called 'parts'. 

This triad is the infrastructure of an existential morphology, which
means that one can examine semiosis within the biological and
physico-chemical realm and not simply in the conceptual realm. So, a
cell IS a Sign [capital S] in itself, operating within that triad as
a morphological entity,  interacting with other cells [Signs] - each
as an agential expression of Mind. 

That's where, I think, the pragmaticism of Peirce becomes vital -
for it can show how these morphological entities network with, inform
each other, communicate with each other - and how each affects the
other. We are now acknowledging that plants communicate with other
plants; we acknowledge how each evolves with and adapts to the other.
Mind is not static.The same thing can be seen in the larger
morphologies such as societies, which are huge populations operating
as massive organisms. 

So- even though many on this list are not involved in these areas, I
hope that in the New Year, we can consider some aspects of them.

All the best for the New Year

Edwina Taborsky
 On Sat 30/12/17 10:02 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Peter, Jeff, list,
 Peter, I too found the various viewpoints expressed in this thread
interesting and, taken as a whole, valuable in ways which may go
beyond your initial question. In any case, the discussion certainly
in no way disappointed me either. 
 By the way, Peter, I do not believe that I am alone in suggesting
that Morris' "pragmatics" rather fully distorts Peirce's pragmatism
and has led to considerable misunderstanding as to what Peirce's
views actually were. Continuing, Jeff wrote: 
 JD: Peirce provides the resources needed for understanding how a
contemporary Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. might be
able to engage in fruitful conversation about the nativity scene with
the aim of seeking to better understand their differing experiences
and perspectives on the world. 
 I agree, and would be interested in what other Peircean resources,
along with the ones you just pointed to (or at least hinted at) you
and others might imagine contributing to efforts towards bridging the
communication gap currently prominent not only in religion, art and
literary criticism, but in many other fields as well.  
 One resource which I believe might be productively mined and
developed in consideration of this pursuit of increased intra- and
inter-disciplinary communication is succinctly adumbrated in the
quote in my last post.
 Methodeutic  or philosophical rhetoric . . . studies the principles
that relate signs to each other and to the world: 
 If Peircean philosophical rhetoric (which includes not only
pragmatism, but what some have seen as the basis for a complete
theory of inquiry) can indeed better show how "signs relate to each
other and to the world," it might be the quintessential branch of
logic as semeiotic possibly contributing means for improving
inter-disciplinary communication and communication generally. For as
Peirce continues: 
 "[Philosophical rhetoric's] task is to ascertain the laws by
which in every scientific intelligence one sign gives birth to
another, and especially one thought brings forth another" (CP 2.229).
 
 Peirce explains that by "scientific intelligence" he means "one
capable of learning." Better understanding this branch of semeiotics
having the potential for contributing to "the growth of learning"
through, especially as you wrote, Jeff, "fruitful conversation. . .
with the aim of seeking to better understand. . . differing
experience"  might prove to be invaluable in this pursuit of
improving communication.
 And, again, since Peirce defines a "scientific intelligence" as one
"capable of learning," and since as biosemiotics and related fields
have made amply clear, biological organisms, being most certainly
"capable of learning,"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

2017-12-31 Thread kirstima


John, list,

I have been out of reach for more than a week. A heap of mails in this 
thread.  My responses may seem to many as ancient history. For that 
reason I'll leave the comment responded below. And I'll try to be 
concice.


No arguments on words and reference, however detailed, can possibly give 
next to nothing towards making clear the crucial issue on the nature of 
rel. betw. sign and meaning. (CSP of cource presupposed as the context).


Analytical (nominalistic) philosophy made the mistake of taking words 
and reference as all there is to sings and meaning.


Do you agree?

Best, Kirsti


John F Sowa kirjoitti 22.12.2017 08:00:

Kirsti and Gary F,

K

Euclid introduced the word SEMEION, and defined it as that which
has no parts, and his followers started to that word instead of
the earlier STIGME .


GF

By the way, according to my sources, Aristotle used the word σημεῖον
for point before Euclid. [And from web site] According to the Liddell
and Scott lexicon, the word σημεῖον (the usual Greek word for sign
and root of semeiotic) was also used by Aristotle for a mathematical
point, or a point in time. In this sense it was synonymous with
στιγμή (stigma).


I checked Liddell & Scott, Chantraine's dictionnaire étymologique,
and Heath's translation and commentary on Euclid.

The base word is the verb 'stigo', which means to mark something;
for example, as a sign of ownership.  From that, the word 'stigma'
(ending in alpha instead of eta) meant the mark caused by a pointed
instrument.  The word 'stigme' originally meant a spot in a bird's
plumage; then it came to mean any spot, a small mark, or an instant.

Aristotle explicitly said that a  point was a marker on a line,
not a part of the line.  Heath said that Euclid generally followed
Aristotle.  But in vol. 1, p. 156, he said that 'semeion' was
probably "considered more suitable than 'stigme' (a puncture)
which might claim to have more reality than a point."

In summary, all three words (stigma, stigme, and semeion) could refer
to a mark, but semeion is more abstract and general than the others.

K

Does a sign have parts?  - How about meaning?


The word 'semeion' could be used to refer to any kind of mark.
Euclid used it for just one particular kind.  For that use in
geometry, the thing it refers to has no parts.

K
the Romans & later Boethius changed it to PUNCTUM in their 
commentaries.


I believe that it was good idea to have two distinct words:
'signum' for sign, and 'punctum' for point.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Auke van Breemen

Gary, list,

 

I agree with your general remarks on speculative grammar. However I remain 
unsure about the coverage you assign to it. So, some words on my view on it. If 
you include the wild cultural speculations that passed this list in the 
nativity example I disagree. Those belong sooner to the special sciences (the 
psychical). Semiotics is more formal, its role is akin to the role of logic.

 

Lets start with Hegels erroneous (in our present day eyes) definition of logic: 
it studies the idea in the formal element of thought. In Peirces work the 
formal element is the subject of logic. For the study of the idea (sign would 
have been better) in the formal element Peirce coined semiotics. Some 
interesting parallels may be drawn between logic and semiotic. 

 

Speculative grammar – propositional logic (sub species eternitate, solipsistic)

Critic -   quantification (and modality?) are added. (the idea of worldly 
affairs added)

Speculative Rhetoric – (modality?) approaches like the socratic dialogue, 
medieval obligations, Hintikka’s game theoretical semantics, EG (interaction 
between graphist and interpreter added)

 

I am unsure about the place of modality, but maybe it just boils down to a 
firstness and secondness view on the issue. 

 

Anyhow, if the above makes any sense, then it would follow that Speculative 
Rhetoric would consist in a branch of study that provides a semi-formal study 
of the interaction between two man signs, mediated by all kind of signs, (man 
regarded as a dynamical argument in which all sign aspects are involved) that 
if performed long enough would eventually yield a graphical system akin to EG. 

 

1.  We would have to assume that a man sign (A) being in a state receives 
an effect sign x (In a first approximation one of the ten sign types that 
follow from the small classification, later to be extended into the 66 possible 
signs of the Welby classification).  
2.  The processing of x by A must be pictured in steps that follow the 
triadic structure and be cast in terms of the sign aspects. This hold for x, 
but also for A, but here we might want to take the corresponding interpretant 
aspectual names.
3.  Result of the interpretation process is the utterance of a response on 
x, x´. This x´effects man sign B that also is in a certain state, processes x´ 
and responds x” to A. Etc.

 

Note that the immediate object of A (A being a semiotic sheet comparable to the 
EG sheet), will differ from the immediate object of B. 

The dynamical object is reality. It is to be looked at as the common sheet of 
which the individual sheets are part (truth and falsity being present). One 
could look at the individual sheets as being comprised of Sowa’s conceptual 
graphs as they are realized in that individual and could be taken as a mapping 
of all conceptual content that can be drawn upon by the sheet when entering an 
interpretation process. So, that scheme would go into the index position, each 
item typified according to its sign aspectual possibilities.

 

The state being defined by the currently reigning emotional state (a 
firstness), the conceptual content (a secondness) and the goal (a thirdness) 
that rules sheet A or B at the moment it gets effected. 

 

In the content part of the nativity discussion we have seen this process in 
actu, but very unstructured, it is the task of semiotics to provide tools to 
structure this kind of conversation and to ensure that progress is made in an 
orderly fashion and in such a way that the sheet of A and B, for this issue 
merge. That is why semiotics is a normative science.

 

Best wishes,

 

Auke van Breemen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Van: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: zondag 31 december 2017 4:02
Aan: Peirce-L 
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

 

Peter, Jeff, list,

 

Peter, I too found the various viewpoints expressed in this thread interesting 
and, taken as a whole, valuable in ways which may go beyond your initial 
question. In any case, the discussion certainly in no way disappointed me 
either. 

 

By the way, Peter, I do not believe that I am alone in suggesting that Morris' 
"pragmatics" rather fully distorts Peirce's pragmatism and has led to 
considerable misunderstanding as to what Peirce's views actually were. 
Continuing, Jeff wrote:

 

JD: Peirce provides the resources needed for understanding how a contemporary 
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. might be able to engage in 
fruitful conversation about the nativity scene with the aim of seeking to 
better understand their differing experiences and perspectives on the world.

 

I agree, and would be interested in what other Peircean resources, along with 
the ones you just pointed to (or at least hinted at) you and others might 
imagine contributing to efforts towards bridging the communication gap 
currently prominent not only in religion, art and literary

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Year end note by list moderato

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

[PEIRCE-L] Year end note by list moderato

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

Re: Chirality (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4)

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

[PEIRCE-L] Modal logic (was Nativity scenes

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

21 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information