Hi Helmut,
Yes, as you surmise. I think it is reasonable to take this as a refinement of
Spencer-Brown. Let me explain it a little further.
The space in which language grows is a kind of gravitational field where truth
is the center from which language arises in the form of marks each of which
Charles,
wow, interesting! I think about it. By first glance it seems to me like a linguistic elaboration of Spencer-Brown. Do all polarities come from a marked starting point, looking out for an opposite in unmarked space?
I apologize to everybody "conservative". Please see my use of the term co
Helmut,
Speaking as a linguist, I must point out that the view of language you take in
the paragraph I quote below is profoundly mistaken.
--begin quote from Helmut--
The conservative concept of sexuality is male-female, so binary, like
black-white, hot-cold, right-wrong, up-down, open-
Edwina,
I see. I think, I mistakenly have compared the thing I was talking about with semiotics. Maybe it might better refer to LOR. I guess, the triadic sign is something too special to be suggested for model in this respect. The triadicity in the Logic Of Relatives probably suits better to the e
Helmut
My apologies - I see your point against the yes-no-maybe. But I
don't think that the middle action of mediation emerges from the
interaction of polarities. This is almost a type of 'averaging' where
all individual units partake of 'some' of each other.
The middl
Edwina,
Yes, I agree, that the so-called progressives are not per se better argumenting or more ethical people than conservatives. An overreacting progressive can be a real monster. But you told me, that "The Peircean triad doesn't mean that there are three options [ie black, white and gray]. The
Helmut - I think you've fallen into your own definitional trap.
The Peircean triad doesn't mean that there are three options [ie
black, white and gray]. The Peircean triad is an irreducible process,
where the middle term is an action-of-mediation. Not a third option.
And I don
List,
As Peircean semiotics is a three-valued logic, I think it bears relevance for the discussion about multiple-valued logic. But I have the impression, that multipleness is sometimes explained away by just adding a "maybe" to the values "yes" and "no" (e.g. Lukasiewicz). I think, this is wro
