Re: [PEIRCE-L] Meta-languages. Re: Four branches of existential graphs: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta

2024-03-24 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Jerry, List:

Roberts is not discussing metalanguage at all in that excerpt from p. 22 of
his 1973 book, he is talking about rhemata/rhemes (Peirce uses both terms).
These are incomplete propositions, with blanks where subjects need to be
added in order to turn them into complete propositions.

Metalanguage only comes into play if the blank in a rhema/rheme is filled
with a proposition, resulting in a proposition *about *a proposition. In
Beta EGs, general concepts are attributed to indefinite individuals by
attaching names to heavy lines of identity. In Gamma EGs, a line of
identity attached to a name can be replaced by a dotted (or lightly drawn)
line attached to a dotted (or lightly drawn) oval that contains the EG for
a complete proposition. Roberts discusses Peirce's 1903 version of this
notation on pp. 76-77, but as John Sowa has observed all along, a much
simpler example is on RLT 151 (1898)--"That you are a good girl is much to
be wished."

[image: image.png]

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 8:20 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> John, Jon:
>
> In my opinion your responses to the issues surrounding Tarski’s
> “metalanguage" are so weak from a scientific point of view that it is
> simpler to just pose an example of the meanings of metalanguages in the
> relevant logic used by CSP.
>
> The following is an excerpt from Robert’s book, page 22:
>
> What is a reasonable interpretation about the “blanks” in sentences
> relative to concatenations of logical operations between the posits and the
> consequences?
>
> How would the blanks be relative to the copula?  Copula’s of
> “metalanguages?
>
> What would be the number of metalanguages necessary for a conclusion from
>  a posited pragmatic sentence with n blanks?
>
> Which of the logical particles would associated with a metalanguage in the
> example cited by Roberts?
>
> Have fun!
>
> Cheers
> Jerry
>
> The collection of Peirce papers at Harvard University contains a number of
> undated manuscripts on logical graphs to which Peirce could here be
> referring. Consider in the second place Peirce's use of dashes in place of
> demonstrative terms and nouns to produce blank forms of propositions called
> 'rhemata'. If only one noun is erased~ a non-relative rhema is produced, as
> '__ is mortal'. If two or more nouns are erased, the result is a relative
> rhema, such as '__ is bought by __ from __ for __ ' (3.420). Consider in
> the third place the expressed analogy between logical compounds and
> chemical compounds:
>
A rhema is somewhat closely analogous to a chemical atom or radicle with
> unsaturated bonds. A non-relative rhema is like a univalent radicle; it has
> but one unsaturated bond. A relative rhema is like a multivalent radicle.
> The blanks of a rhema can only be filled by terms, or, what is the same
> thing, by "something which" (or the like) followed by a rhema; or, two can
> be filled together by means of "itself" or the like. So, in chemistry,
> unsaturated bonds can only be saturated by joining two of them, which will
> usually, though not necessarily, belong to different radicles. If two
> univalent radicles are united, the result is a saturated compound. So, two
> non-relative rhemas being joined give a complete proposition. Thus, to join
> "__ is mortal" and "__is a man", we have "X is mortal and X is a man", or
> some man is mortal. So likewise, a saturated compound may result from
> joining two bonds of a bivalent radicle; and, in the same way, the two
> blanks of a dual rhema may be joined to make a complete proposition. Thus,
> "__ loves __", "X loves X", or something loves itself [3.421].
>
This article is important for several reasons. It shows clearly that the
> parallel existing between these diagrams and chemical diagrams was strong
> in Peirce's mind;
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Meta-languages. Re: Four branches of existential graphs: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta

2024-03-24 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
John, Jon:

In my opinion your responses to the issues surrounding Tarski’s “metalanguage" 
are so weak from a scientific point of view that it is simpler to just pose an 
example of the meanings of metalanguages in the relevant logic used by CSP.

The following is an excerpt from Robert’s book, page 22:

What is a reasonable interpretation about the “blanks” in sentences relative to 
concatenations of logical operations between the posits and the consequences?

How would the blanks be relative to the copula?  Copula’s of “metalanguages?

What would be the number of metalanguages necessary for a conclusion from  a 
posited pragmatic sentence with n blanks?

Which of the logical particles would associated with a metalanguage in the 
example cited by Roberts?

Have fun!

Cheers
Jerry  


The collection of Peirce papers at Harvard University contains a number of 
undated manuscripts on logical graphs to which Peirce could here be re- 
ferring. Consider in the second place Peirce's use of dashes in place of 
demonstrative terms and nouns to produce blank forms of propositions called 
'rhemata'. If only one noun is erased~ a non-relative rhema is produc- ed, as 
'_ _ is mortal'. If two or more nouns are erased, the result is a relative 
rhema, such as '__ is bought by __ from __ for __ ' (3.420). Consider in the 
third place the expressed analogy between logical compounds and chemical 
compounds:

A rhema is somewhat closely analogous to a chemical atom or radicle with 
unsaturated bonds. A non-relative rhema is like a univalent radicle; it has but 
one unsaturated bond. A relative rhema is like a multivalent radicle. The 
blanks of a rhema can only be filled by terms, or, what is the same thing, by 
"something which" (or the like) followed by a rhema; or, two can be filled 
together by means of "itself" or the like. So, in chemistry, unsaturat- ed 
bonds can only be saturated by joining two of them, which will usually, though 
not necessarily, belong to different radicles. If two univalent radicles are 
united, the result is a saturated compound. So, two non-relative rhemas being 
joined give a complete proposition. Thus, to join "_ _ is mortal" and 
"__isaman",wehave"XismortalandXisaman",orsomemanis mortal. So likewise, a 
saturated compound may result from joining two bonds of a bivalent radicle; 
and, in the same way, the two blanks of a dual rhema may be joined to make a 
complete proposition. Thus, " _ _ loves _ _", "X loves X", or something loves 
itself [3.421].

This article is important for several reasons. It shows clearly that the 
parallel existing between theSe diagrams and chemical diagrams was strong in 
Peirce's mind; 


> On Mar 23, 2024, at 4:46 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Jerry, Jon, List,
> 
> JLRC:  If the critical concept that is under scrutiny here the issue of 
> “graphs of graphs” , how is this related to the arithmetical notion of 
> division?  
> 
> I agree with Jon's explanation below that Peirce did not use the word 
> "division" to mean the numerical operation of dividing two numbers.  He was 
> talking about dividing different parts of a text.
> 
> As for the phrase "graph of graphs", that excerpt occurred in the 
> introductory paragraphs of Lecture V of Peirce's Lowell lectures of 1903.   
> Immediately before that, he used the synonym "graphs about graphs''.  Since 
> the word 'metalanguage' had not yet been introduced in English, the phrase 
> "graphs about graphs" is his best and clearest term.  It he had used his 
> Greek, he might have coined the word 'metagraph'.  
> 
> I am happy to say that I completely agree with Jon's note below.  However, 
> the following passage from another note is misleading about Peirce, Euclid, 
> and mathematical practice from ancient times to the present.
> 
> JAS:  The "red pencil" notation (1909) is entirely different from this--a red 
> line is drawn just inside the physical edge of the sheet, and postulates are 
> written in the resulting margin. These are not propositions about the 
> propositions written inside the red line (metalanguage), they are premisses 
> (antecedent) from which the propositions written inside the red line follow 
> necessarily as deductive conclusions (consequent). For example, if the EGs 
> for Euclid's five postulates are scribed in the margin, then they can be 
> iterated to the interior, where the EGs for all the theorems of Euclidean 
> geometry can be derived from them in accordance with the usual permissions. 
> 
> It's true that postulates are iterated (or copied) during the process of 
> proving a theorem.  But it's also possible to iterate a statement from a 
> that-clause of metalanguage to a collection of statements that are being 
> discussed in other ways.
> 
> In mathematical texts, it's common to say "Given A1, A2, A3..., it follows 
> THAT T1, T2, T3...  where the A's are axioms, and the T's are theorems that 
> follow from the axioms.
> 
> Note the word 'that'.  It is a sign of METALANGUAGE, 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Meta-languages. Re: Four branches of existential graphs: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta

2024-03-24 Thread John F Sowa
Jon, List,

All the commentary, quotations, and citations below by both of us are 
irrelevant to mathematical practice from ancient times to the present.  
Following is a definitive statement of mathematical practice from Euclid to the 
present:

In mathematics,  the distinction between axioms, postulates, and theorems is 
stated by metalanguage. That is a convenience for classifying, citing, and 
finding them.  But during any proof or reasoning of any kind, all relevant 
statements are placed in a single common area (paper, blackboard, whiteboard, 
computer storage, or phemic sheet).

The metalanguage that distinguishes axioms, postulates, and theorems is useful 
information for finding and citing the sources in a published proof.   But 
during a proof, the axioms, postulates, and previously proved theorems are 
copied into the current workspace (or phemic sheet).  They are used in exactly 
the same way, independent of their source or what they may be called.

This is not a debatable opinion.  It is a fact that can be verified by looking 
at any proof in any well-edited textbook of any branch of mathematics from the 
ancient past to the latest and greatest.

John

PS:  I majored in mathematics and related topics (logic and physics) at MIT and 
Harvard.  I later taught, lectured, and published books and articles on 
mathematics, logic, computer science, and computational linguistics.  The above 
facts are indisputable.   Peirce knew them very well.  He would not make a 
careless mistake about them.


From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
Sent: 3/23/24 10:51 PM

John, List:

JFS: I am happy to say that I completely agree with Jon's note below. However, 
the following passage from another note is misleading about Peirce, Euclid, and 
mathematical practice from ancient times to the present.

The quoted passage is from my same note below.

JFS: In mathematical texts, it's common to say "Given A1, A2, A3..., it follows 
THAT T1, T2, T3...  where the A's are axioms, and the T's are theorems that 
follow from the axioms. Note the word 'that'. It is a sign of METALANGUAGE, 
between two clauses of a sentence. It is not a sign of implication. The word 
'follows' or more precisely 'my be proved from' indicate the steps of a proof.

"Given A, it follows that T" is logically equivalent to "if A, then T," which 
is logically equivalent to "A implies T." A is the premiss or antecedent (e.g., 
postulates), and T is the conclusion or consequent (e.g., theorems). There is 
no need for metalanguage to express this in EGs since it is represented by a 
scroll or nested cuts or a ring-shaped shaded area--including a sheet with a 
red line drawn just inside its edges (or a shaded margin).

JFS: As for the notations in R514 and L376, Peirce made another distinction: 
postulates are propositions on which the utterer and the interpreter agree. The 
choice of postulates is the result of an AGREEMENT between the utterer and the 
interpreter. The results inside the red line are the result of an INVESTIGATION 
that may be far more complex than an mathematical proof.

In R 514, Peirce only states that "in the margin outside the red line, whatever 
is scribed is merely asserted to be possible. Thus, if the subject were 
geometry, I could write in that margin the postulates, and any pertinent 
problems stated in the form of postulates." He does not say anything about "an 
agreement between the utterer and the interpreter," nor about the "results 
inside the red line" before the text breaks off in mid-sentence.

In R L376, Peirce does not say anything about "the red line" nor "an 
investigation," complex or otherwise. The "agreement between the utterer and 
the interpreter" is on the subject of the graphs scribed on each piece of 
paper, which represents a portion of the overall universe of discourse that "is 
before the common attention" of both parties at one time or another. He only 
discusses postulates in the paragraph right before the section on "The Phemic 
Sheet," and only for the purpose of explaining why "any valid deductive 
conclusion" is not "instantaneously evident upon an examination of the 
premisses." Here is what he says.

CSP: My second reason is found in the peculiar character of mathematical 
postulates. These pronounce that certain things are possible. But these 
possibles are not, of course, single things, for a single thing must be more or 
less than possible: they embrace whole infinite series of infinite series of 
objects in each postulate; and it is upon the statement of the possibility of 
one single one of those objects or single one for each set of certain others, 
that some essential part of the conclusion is founded. How many demonstrations, 
for example, and very simple ones too, as mathematics goes, depend, each of 
them, upon the possibility of a single straight line; while this possibility is 
only asserted in the postulate that there is, or may be, a straight line 
through 

[PEIRCE-L] Published 2024-2-19: The Oxford Handbook of Charles S. Peirce

2024-03-24 Thread Ben Udell

Re-send.  Sorry, left out the first part of the table of contents.


 The Oxford Handbook of Charles S. Peirce


   Cornelis de Waal (ed.)

Published: 19 February 2024
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/56073

Contents


 Front Matter

Copyright Page
Preface
List of Contributors

   The Significance of Charles Sanders Peirce for the Twenty-First Century

   Note on the Primary Literature


 Part I Life and Career

1 Peirce’s Journey to the End of Inquiry: The Tenure of the Soul
Daniel L. Everett

2 The Cosmopolitan Peirce: His Five Visits to Europe
Jaime Nubiola and Sara Barrena

3 Peirce’s Thwarted Career
Cheryl Misak


 Part II Phenomenology and the Normative Sciences

4 Peirce’s Formal and Material Categories in Phenomenology
Richard Kenneth Atkins

5 The Vicissitudes of Experience
Nathan Houser

6 Charles S. Peirce on the Inquiry into the Discovery of Ideals, Norms, and 
Values
Tiago da Costa e Silva

7 The Aesthetic Imperative: From Normative Science and Self-Control to 
Somaesthetics
Richard Shusterman

8 Morality and Ethics in the Work of Charles Peirce
James Jakόb Liszka

9 Love and the Growth of Justice
Juliana Acosta López de Mesa and Daniel G. Campos


 Part III Logic and Mathematics

10 Why Study Logic?
Mark Migotti

11 Peirce’s Philosophy of Logic
Leila Haaparanta

12 Peirce’s Abduction and Its Interpretations
Ilkka Niiniluoto

13 Peirce’s Theories of Generalized Propositions
Frederik Stjernfelt

14 Existential Graphs: History and Interpretation
Francesco Bellucci and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen

15 Diagrammatic Thinking, Diagrammatic Representations, and the Moral Economy 
of Nineteenth-Century Science
Chiara Ambrosio

16 The Logic and Mathematics of Charles Sanders Peirce
Louis H. Kauffman

17 Advances in Peirce’s Mathematics: A Short Survey (1960–2020)
Fernando Zalamea


 Part IV Pragmatism

18 Pragmatisms?
Philip Kitcher

19 Why Philosophers Must Be Pragmatists: Taking Cues from Peirce
Cornelis de Waal

20 Theory, Practice, and Deliberation: Peirce’s Pragmatism Comprehensively 
Conceived
Vincent Colapietro

21 Pragmatic Clarification: Contexts and Purposes
Mats Bergman

22 Peirce, Perception, and Empiricism
Aaron Bruce Wilson


 Part V Metaphysics

23 Peirce on Reality and Existence
Robert Lane

24 Scientific Pride and Metaphysical Prejudice: Ens Quantum Ens, Quantum 
Theory, and Peirce
Rosa Mayorga

25 Peirce on Kant’s Refutation of Idealism
Gabriele Gava

26 Peirce on Truth
Andrew Howat

27 Peirce and Religion
Gary Slater


 Part VI Science and Semiotics

28 A Science Like Any Other: A Peircean Philosophy of Sex?
Shannon Dea

29 Charles S. Peirce and the Feeling of Understanding: The Power and Limit of 
Science from a Pragmatist Perspective
Herman C. D. G. de Regt

30 Peirce’s Views on Education and Learning
Torjus Midtgarden

31 The Philosophical Relevance of Peirce’s Historical Studies
Tullio Viola

32 Diagrams, Semiosis, and Peirce’s Metaphor
Tony Jappy

33 Peirce on Biology: A Critical Review
Kalevi Kull

34 Peirce’s Universal Grammar: Some Implications for Modern Linguistics
Daniel L. Everett


   End Matter


 Index
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 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] Published 2024-2-19: The Oxford Handbook of Charles S. Peirce

2024-03-24 Thread Ben Udell


 The Oxford Handbook of Charles S. Peirce


   Cornelis de Waal (ed.)

Published: 19 February 2024
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/56073


 Part I Life and Career

1 Peirce’s Journey to the End of Inquiry: The Tenure of the Soul
Daniel L. Everett

2 The Cosmopolitan Peirce: His Five Visits to Europe
Jaime Nubiola and Sara Barrena

3 Peirce’s Thwarted Career
Cheryl Misak


 Part II Phenomenology and the Normative Sciences

4 Peirce’s Formal and Material Categories in Phenomenology
Richard Kenneth Atkins

5 The Vicissitudes of Experience
Nathan Houser

6 Charles S. Peirce on the Inquiry into the Discovery of Ideals, Norms, and 
Values
Tiago da Costa e Silva

7 The Aesthetic Imperative: From Normative Science and Self-Control to 
Somaesthetics
Richard Shusterman

8 Morality and Ethics in the Work of Charles Peirce
James Jakόb Liszka

9 Love and the Growth of Justice
Juliana Acosta López de Mesa and Daniel G. Campos


 Part III Logic and Mathematics

10 Why Study Logic?
Mark Migotti

11 Peirce’s Philosophy of Logic
Leila Haaparanta

12 Peirce’s Abduction and Its Interpretations
Ilkka Niiniluoto

13 Peirce’s Theories of Generalized Propositions
Frederik Stjernfelt

14 Existential Graphs: History and Interpretation
Francesco Bellucci and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen

15 Diagrammatic Thinking, Diagrammatic Representations, and the Moral Economy 
of Nineteenth-Century Science
Chiara Ambrosio

16 The Logic and Mathematics of Charles Sanders Peirce
Louis H. Kauffman

17 Advances in Peirce’s Mathematics: A Short Survey (1960–2020)
Fernando Zalamea


 Part IV Pragmatism

18 Pragmatisms?
Philip Kitcher

19 Why Philosophers Must Be Pragmatists: Taking Cues from Peirce
Cornelis de Waal

20 Theory, Practice, and Deliberation: Peirce’s Pragmatism Comprehensively 
Conceived
Vincent Colapietro

21 Pragmatic Clarification: Contexts and Purposes
Mats Bergman

22 Peirce, Perception, and Empiricism
Aaron Bruce Wilson


 Part V Metaphysics

23 Peirce on Reality and Existence
Robert Lane

24 Scientific Pride and Metaphysical Prejudice: Ens Quantum Ens, Quantum 
Theory, and Peirce
Rosa Mayorga

25 Peirce on Kant’s Refutation of Idealism
Gabriele Gava

26 Peirce on Truth
Andrew Howat

27 Peirce and Religion
Gary Slater


 Part VI Science and Semiotics

28 A Science Like Any Other: A Peircean Philosophy of Sex?
Shannon Dea

29 Charles S. Peirce and the Feeling of Understanding: The Power and Limit of 
Science from a Pragmatist Perspective
Herman C. D. G. de Regt

30 Peirce’s Views on Education and Learning
Torjus Midtgarden

31 The Philosophical Relevance of Peirce’s Historical Studies
Tullio Viola

32 Diagrams, Semiosis, and Peirce’s Metaphor
Tony Jappy

33 Peirce on Biology: A Critical Review
Kalevi Kull

34 Peirce’s Universal Grammar: Some Implications for Modern Linguistics
Daniel L. Everett


   End Matter


 Index
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 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.