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 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 [1] .
Links:
------
[1] 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 .
