John,
Despite your earlier comment in a post addressed to me on March 6 where you
wrote that "the important references are in the future, not the past" -- a
remark which, in this matter of Delta EGs, I cannot say I much agree with
insofar as it relates to Peirce's work -- it remains impossible
Jerry, List:
Your questions as posed are extremely general, and their answers depend
heavily on the particular context of interest.
Peirce *assigns *specific logical content to certain signs in his
Existential Graphs (EGs) and develops the transformation rules for them
accordingly. In all parts,
Jeff, List,
Those are important questions:
JBD: How important is it to consider the things Peirce is reading for the sake
of understanding what he says? Let me start with a simple point. Can we
understand what Peirce is explicitly saying about another author's views
without reading the
John, List:
CSP: The better exposition of 1903 divided the system into three parts,
distinguished as the Alpha, the Beta, and the Gamma, parts; a division I
shall here adhere to, although I shall now have to add a *Delta *part in
order to deal with modals.
JFS: Peirce is not saying that he is
Jon, John, List:
The attempts to interpret the on going discussions leads to simple questions
about meaning of symbols and logics.
Given a graphic object, how does one decipher the logical content of it?
What types of semantics can be associated with what types of visual
distinctions?
How
John
It seems to me that an emphasis on ’semantics rather than syntax’ sets up an
analytic frame focusing only on entities operating within a mode of Secondness
- and ignoring the mode of Thirdness operating in syntax..
Edwina
> On Mar 11, 2024, at 3:27 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> In my
