Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supp-supplement: And, I think, that amongst the things about what is to be said more, is the subject of the difference between classification and composition (inclusion), which Russell had pointed out. The third one, between them (as there are always three- Peircean) is power. 1: Composition, 2.: Power, 3.: Classification. This distinctions are essential in many cases, e.g. to talk about "degenerateness" it is essential to know, that it merely applies to classification (sign classes), but not to composition (like a sign being composed of sign, object, interpretant). That was only my theory: Dont necessarily approve it.



 
 

Supplement: From Wikipedia and other internet articles I have got the strong idea, that Russell (of whom there was only one, he just had got very old) was a good guy. Might have called himself "atheist", but performatively always worked for the general good. So I wonder. Don´t bother to tell just me, if all others already know, I will try to find out myself where and when he was an inquiry-blocker, or an anti-transcendentalist, or a metaphysics-refuter.



Thank you, John, Stephen, and all, especially John, for your patient explanations and answers to my errors. From all I know, which is not much, I of course agree so far. Also, that someone has to clear the brushes. Have there been two Russells? I have read an article about Russell falsely claiming that Peirce did not sufficiently tell classification from inclusion, at the time Peirce still was alive. On the other hand Russell was contemporary with Spencer-Brown, in the nineteensixties. I would suggest Russell´s daughter to take part at the "Me too"- debate, for her being taken advantage of in the process of advertisement of "Laws Of Form". That was not very metaphysical or transcendental (categorical imperative, path is goal, and so on). Anyways, do inquiry blocks follow a certain pattern, like, declaring one aspect of philosophy for the main one, and others for epiphenomena or even irrelevant ones?.
Best, Helmut

 08. Juni 2018 um 16:44 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
wrote:


Wittgenstein, Peirce, and Nietzsche fit together and seeing that seems to me almost key to figuring out where we need to go. Of the three Peirce is the heavy lifter, Nietzsche the brush clearer and Wittgenstein the assent CSP needs to say what he does about science, metaphysics, and semiotics.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM,  wrote:

John,

Well put, indeed!

Kirsti M.

John F Sowa kirjoitti 3.6.2018 00:57:
On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

That was from the his first book, the Tractatus.  He wrote that
while he was still following his mentors, Frege and Russell.

Russell and Carnap loved that book, because they misunderstood
his point.  There is much more to say.

Please read the signproc.pdf article.

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 .




 


- 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 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: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supplement: From Wikipedia and other internet articles I have got the strong idea, that Russell (of whom there was only one, he just had got very old) was a good guy. Might have called himself "atheist", but performatively always worked for the general good. So I wonder. Don´t bother to tell just me, if all others already know, I will try to find out myself where and when he was an inquiry-blocker, or an anti-transcendentalist, or a metaphysics-refuter.



Thank you, John, Stephen, and all, especially John, for your patient explanations and answers to my errors. From all I know, which is not much, I of course agree so far. Also, that someone has to clear the brushes. Have there been two Russells? I have read an article about Russell falsely claiming that Peirce did not sufficiently tell classification from inclusion, at the time Peirce still was alive. On the other hand Russell was contemporary with Spencer-Brown, in the nineteensixties. I would suggest Russell´s daughter to take part at the "Me too"- debate, for her being taken advantage of in the process of advertisement of "Laws Of Form". That was not very metaphysical or transcendental (categorical imperative, path is goal, and so on). Anyways, do inquiry blocks follow a certain pattern, like, declaring one aspect of philosophy for the main one, and others for epiphenomena or even irrelevant ones?.
Best, Helmut

 08. Juni 2018 um 16:44 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
wrote:


Wittgenstein, Peirce, and Nietzsche fit together and seeing that seems to me almost key to figuring out where we need to go. Of the three Peirce is the heavy lifter, Nietzsche the brush clearer and Wittgenstein the assent CSP needs to say what he does about science, metaphysics, and semiotics.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM,  wrote:

John,

Well put, indeed!

Kirsti M.

John F Sowa kirjoitti 3.6.2018 00:57:
On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

That was from the his first book, the Tractatus.  He wrote that
while he was still following his mentors, Frege and Russell.

Russell and Carnap loved that book, because they misunderstood
his point.  There is much more to say.

Please read the signproc.pdf article.

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 .




 


- 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 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: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

Thank you, John, Stephen, and all, especially John, for your patient explanations and answers to my errors. From all I know, which is not much, I of course agree so far. Also, that someone has to clear the brushes. Have there been two Russells? I have read an article about Russell falsely claiming that Peirce did not sufficiently tell classification from inclusion, at the time Peirce still was alive. On the other hand Russell was contemporary with Spencer-Brown, in the nineteensixties. I would suggest Russell´s daughter to take part at the "Me too"- debate, for her being taken advantage of in the process of advertisement of "Laws Of Form". That was not very metaphysical or transcendental (categorical imperative, path is goal, and so on). Anyways, do inquiry blocks follow a certain pattern, like, declaring one aspect of philosophy for the main one, and others for epiphenomena or even irrelevant ones?.
Best, Helmut

 08. Juni 2018 um 16:44 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
wrote:


Wittgenstein, Peirce, and Nietzsche fit together and seeing that seems to me almost key to figuring out where we need to go. Of the three Peirce is the heavy lifter, Nietzsche the brush clearer and Wittgenstein the assent CSP needs to say what he does about science, metaphysics, and semiotics.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM,  wrote:

John,

Well put, indeed!

Kirsti M.

John F Sowa kirjoitti 3.6.2018 00:57:
On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

That was from the his first book, the Tractatus.  He wrote that
while he was still following his mentors, Frege and Russell.

Russell and Carnap loved that book, because they misunderstood
his point.  There is much more to say.

Please read the signproc.pdf article.

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 .




 


- 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 .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter tautologies, I take this for an inquiry-block. But I guess he just had a bad day then, but otherwise was a good philosopher too.




John, list,

maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine, what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

Best, helmut

 

, 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr
: "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
> semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
> empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
> be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
> dialectically. Isnt that so?

The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.

A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect,

I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore,
thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.

I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.

I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.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 .



 




- 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 .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

John, list,

maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine, what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

Best, helmut

 

, 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr
: "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
> semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
> empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
> be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
> dialectically. Isnt that so?

The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.

A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect,

I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore,
thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.

I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.

I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.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 .



 




-
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: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supplement: Maybe too, I suffer from disharmonyphopia, or am harmony-addicted, so always look for compatibility instead of contradiction. And I like Noam Chomsky.




John, list,

In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their theories. On one hand I understand that, because I have felt something like that too, against Skinner and his behaviourism. Not to speak of Nietzsche, his resentful refution-attempt of values, and his superman. On the other hand I suspect, that some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism, semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn, empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses, dialectically. Isnt that so? It is only a hunch of mine, as I have not studied these theories thoroughly. But all these opponental philosophers did not always mutually refuse to attend each other´s meetings. They also talked with each other and learned from each other, or so it says on Wikipedia. I guess, or suspect, that some opposing -isms are not either-or-matters, but merely different approaches, namely top-down-method versus bottom-up-method. Just guessing, more or less.

Best, Helmut

 

01. Juni 2018 um 16:56 Uhr
 "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

Mary,

> My previous post was intended for John alone. Please ignore it.
> I apologize for my mistake.

Please don't apologize. I'm glad to get the free advertising.

> reading Joyce’s ouevre, reading Peirce (whom I think Joyce read in 1903-4
> when he reviewed FCS Schiller’s book on pragmatism in a Dublin paper),
> and this, because it shows me the best so-far explanation of what world-
> representation-language-logic games Joyce was experimenting with.

That led me to your article, which elaborates that point:
https://www.academia.edu/30720270/James_Joyces_comments_on_pragmatism_in_Review_of_Humanism_by_Ferdinand_Channing_Scott_Schiller

The connection between logic, language, philosophy, and literature,
which Joyce recognized, was undermined by the misguided program of
Frege, Russell, Carnap, and Quine. I believe that philosophy, logic,
and the world today would have been much better if logicians and
philosophers had followed Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein.

As just one example, Carnap's most serious denunciation was
"That's poetry!" But Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein had
appreciated the insights of poetry and literature. Wittgenstein
visited the Vienna Circlers several times, but he refused to
attend any meeting at which Carnap would be present.

For the fact that the development of logic did not depend on anything
that Frege wrote, see "Peirce the Logician" by Hilary Putnam:
http://jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm

For the other issues, see "Signs, processes, and language games",
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.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 .



 




- 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 .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

John, list,

In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their theories. On one hand I understand that, because I have felt something like that too, against Skinner and his behaviourism. Not to speak of Nietzsche, his resentful refution-attempt of values, and his superman. On the other hand I suspect, that some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism, semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn, empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses, dialectically. Isnt that so? It is only a hunch of mine, as I have not studied these theories thoroughly. But all these opponental philosophers did not always mutually refuse to attend each other´s meetings. They also talked with each other and learned from each other, or so it says on Wikipedia. I guess, or suspect, that some opposing -isms are not either-or-matters, but merely different approaches, namely top-down-method versus bottom-up-method. Just guessing, more or less.

Best, Helmut

 

01. Juni 2018 um 16:56 Uhr
 "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

Mary,

> My previous post was intended for John alone. Please ignore it.
> I apologize for my mistake.

Please don't apologize. I'm glad to get the free advertising.

> reading Joyce’s ouevre, reading Peirce (whom I think Joyce read in 1903-4
> when he reviewed FCS Schiller’s book on pragmatism in a Dublin paper),
> and this, because it shows me the best so-far explanation of what world-
> representation-language-logic games Joyce was experimenting with.

That led me to your article, which elaborates that point:
https://www.academia.edu/30720270/James_Joyces_comments_on_pragmatism_in_Review_of_Humanism_by_Ferdinand_Channing_Scott_Schiller

The connection between logic, language, philosophy, and literature,
which Joyce recognized, was undermined by the misguided program of
Frege, Russell, Carnap, and Quine. I believe that philosophy, logic,
and the world today would have been much better if logicians and
philosophers had followed Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein.

As just one example, Carnap's most serious denunciation was
"That's poetry!" But Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein had
appreciated the insights of poetry and literature. Wittgenstein
visited the Vienna Circlers several times, but he refused to
attend any meeting at which Carnap would be present.

For the fact that the development of logic did not depend on anything
that Frege wrote, see "Peirce the Logician" by Hilary Putnam:
http://jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm

For the other issues, see "Signs, processes, and language games",
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.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 .



 




-
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: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic

[kirstima]

Helmut, list,

I do not get confused very easily on these topics:) But I think I quite 
understand your dilemmas. Helmut. Negation is no easy topic.


Formal logic may succeed in making it seem easy. To my mind mostly 
because the sentences to be formalized are invented for the purposes of 
demonstation. Thus they are made seem easy.


But if and when one is interested in natural language, one soon tumbles 
into various difficulties & problems. I would recommend skimming through 
a book by Lawrence R. Horn (1989: A natural history of negation. Horn is 
a linguist, who "..focused on the exploration of natural language 
negation and its relation to other operators" (Wikipedia). Just in order 
to get an overview on the variety of problems.


Don't get stuck with 'exclusion'! - CSP starts his graph theory with the 
concept of a sheet of assertion, which has a recto and verso. - Now, 
does the recto exclude the verso? - Well, yes AND no.


IF you have started with the idea of a sheet of paper, then you can only 
see what's on it but not simultaneously the other side. IF you have 
started out with yhe idea of pages in a book, you simultaneously can see 
two pages, and then you need to turn the page. (But unless you have 
superpowers you only can read the pages one by one.)


With computer screens thigs go differently. It is no longer obvious to 
all, that any verso even exists. Common sense is changing... though 
slowly.


CSP's general advice is: one must start what we believe (i.e do not 
doubt in our hearts). And then proceed in a methodical way, step by 
step, without jumping into conclusions. As our minds naturally, i.e 
spontaneously tend to do.


In order to follow Peirce's mindset in laying out the logic in EG's, one 
must start with the practical settings in his days. A sheet of paper and 
a pen, OR a blackboard and a piece of chalk.


Which one is positive? Which on is negative? - One just must make up 
ones mind! AND be consistent with the choice. - Ink on paper cannot be 
easily erased, whilst chalk on a blackboard is.


Our contemporary habits have more and more been formed to accord with 
computer screens. Erasing is so easy, one does not tend to even take 
notice of doing so.


Why do these practical trivialities matter? - Because they presume and 
indicate certain kinds of mind-sets, which  change in time. Our task (as 
Peirceans) is to understand his mind-set and 'translate' as best we can 
to our contemporaries (with now prevailing mind-sets).


Action and experience are formed by each other. => Common sense.

I have only studied in detail Peirce's introduction to EGs. Partly 
because my limited interest in formal logic. My main interest lies in 
natural language(s), discourse in the Foucaldian sense. Even with that 
my interests lie in meanings conveyed, i.e. the relations between 
thoughts and various ways of conveying thoughts. I.e. understanding.


Your problems with the concept 'identity' I find most relevant and 
important. - There is a great difference between mathematical indentity 
and logical identity. ( I think you may gain from taking up Fayerabent: 
Anything goes. He writes a most fun exposition on varieties of traits in 
attempts to define anything. I do not agree with his conclusions, mind 
you. - But they somewhat resemble what you write in your post.)


There was (in the list) a quote (by gnox) from CSP on three lines of 
identity I have hoped to take up here. We'll see.  - Was it about 
magpies? If it was about another species of birds, it makes no (logical) 
difference. Somewhere in his writings the demonstrative example is about 
magpies.


Thank you for your post!

Best, Kirsti



Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 27.5.2018 01:41:

Kirsti, list,
I also think, that "negation" is an interesting and urgent topic.
Peirce´s graphs are maybe based on exclusion, but is exclusion the
same as negation? And, is exclusion the opposite of inclusion (Venn?)
And is negation of negation the same as affirmation? Many questions,
of which I suspect each answer to be "No". But we want to find the
"Yes"ses, dont we.
Example: There is said (in the internet) that integrity is based on
identity. I don´t agree:
Identity is traital negation, definition by exclusion of certain
traits, and keeping the left ones, and if there are none, just pick
any out of the blue, like nations, ethnics, your mothers, esoterics,
religions, or else.
Integrity is negation of negation of temporal and situative
differences of behaviour.
So both are completely different, but are not opposites either, as
they concern different things. So there may be a negation which is not
a negation.
So much for that, I hope I have completely confused you, because
complete confusion is the most democratic starting point for a
fruitful discussion. Best, Helmut.

 26. Mai 2018 um 18:38 Uhr
 kirst...@saunalahti.fi
 wrote:
John,

 I took up your reference to vol 4 in Chronological ed. - I you can
shed
 any more light on loops and twists in CPS's 

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic

[Helmut Raulien]

Kirsti, list,

I also think, that "negation" is an interesting and urgent topic. Peirce´s graphs are maybe based on exclusion, but is exclusion the same as negation? And, is exclusion the opposite of inclusion (Venn?) And is negation of negation the same as affirmation? Many questions, of which I suspect each answer to be "No". But we want to find the "Yes"ses, dont we.

Example: There is said (in the internet) that integrity is based on identity. I don´t agree:

Identity is traital negation, definition by exclusion of certain traits, and keeping the left ones, and if there are none, just pick any out of the blue, like nations, ethnics, your mothers, esoterics, religions, or else.

Integrity is negation of negation of temporal and situative differences of behaviour.

So both are completely different, but are not opposites either, as they concern different things. So there may be a negation which is not a negation.

So much for that, I hope I have completely confused you, because complete confusion is the most democratic starting point for a fruitful discussion. Best, Helmut.

 

 

 

 26. Mai 2018 um 18:38 Uhr
 kirst...@saunalahti.fi
wrote:

John,

I took up your reference to vol 4 in Chronological ed. - I you can shed
any more light on loops and twists in CPS's way to his latest
existential graps, I would be most grateful.

Greimas, the Lithuanian semiotician I have met and discussed with, used
a square similar to the one in page 397. It turned out that he had never
thought of his semiotic square in terms of triad (or triple) relations.

A square, like the diagram in CSP page 397, can be folded two ways. Then
one gets two triangles. One recto, one verso, each visible at a time,
but not together (the very idea of recto and verso).

My interest lies mainly on the relation of logical negation and other
forms of opposition. Pythagorean oppositions, for example are often
treated as negations, without proper grounds.


Best,

Kirsti Määttänen


John F Sowa kirjoitti 19.5.2018 18:44:
> On 5/18/2018 12:54 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
>> I've only seen Venn mention Peirce in regard to Peirce's symbolism for
>> symbolic logic. It's too bad there wasn't more interaction between the
>> two.
>
> I agree.
>
> After reading your note, I didn't do an exhaustive search, but
> I found that Peirce (a) had a high regard for Venn, (b) recognized
> the limitations and errors in Venn's writings, and (c) considered
> Venn's errors a stimulating starting point for his own thinking.
>
> That led me to Venn's articles from 1880, which may have had a
> significant influence on Peirce's thinking about graph logics.
> They're in the 1880 proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical
> Society, which can be downloaded from Google Books:
>
> "On the various notations adopted for expressing the common
> propositions of Logic", pp. 36-47 (55-66).
>
> This article includes brief excerpts from a large number of
> sources, including Frege (1879) and Peirce (1880). But Venn's
> comments about Frege's notation were not encouraging. See
> the attached FregeByVenn.jpg.
>
> Immediately following that article (pp. 47-59) is Venn's
> article "On geometrical diagrams for the representation of
> logical propositions." In this one, he compares his own
> diagrams with a variety of other representations.
>
> In 1882, Peirce wrote a letter to O. H. Mitchell (Writings,
> vol 4, pp. 394 to 399) in which he drew diagrams to represent
> the "logic of relatives.
>
> 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 .



 




-
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 .