Re: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic

Hi Charles Your post below left me stone cold! One counter example to your hypothesis (conjecture?) is the language of chemistry. It is built on positive evidence and reproducible empirical observations. The propositional webs of inferences of chemical structures is one of the several facets o

[PEIRCE-L] The periodic table and other wallcharts in the teaching of chemistry in St Andrews, 1884–1919

List: As a courtesy to the list members that are seeking to place CSP writings in historical context, the following recently published paper (a remarkably detailed first person look at the philosophy of chemistry as it was pragmatically practiced in the later part of CSP lifetime) is posted be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Topical Continuum

List: > On Jul 27, 2020, at 11:14 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > Therefore, it's essential to consider developments during the century > *after* Peirce in order to understand Peirce's early versions of those ideas. I agree. Yes, it is essential. To consider both the areas (domains) where his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Logic of Interpretation

List: > On Jul 19, 2020, at 10:34 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > Since Peirce was so far ahead of his time, his contemporaries couldn't > understand them, and he had no examples that he could cite. See: W8, p. 37. Throughout his life, CSP consistently selected example from the bedrock of his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Logic of Interpretation

Robert: > On Jul 16, 2020, at 6:56 AM, robert marty wrote: > > Your "demonstration" on the chemical combinations between atoms shows above > all your ignorance of mathematical modelling in chemistry. Again, you give me a deep belly laugh. You can access my writing on the mathematical logics

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Interpretation

y > > Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 19:58, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> a écrit : > Robert: > >> On Jul 15, 2020, at 9:04 AM, robert marty > <mailto:robert.mart...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Indeed I know that I wil

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Interpretation

Robert: > On Jul 15, 2020, at 9:04 AM, robert marty wrote: > > Indeed I know that I will be subject to the Law set out by the Russian > physicist Sergey Lopatnikov who anonymously published an essay in which he > introduced a following definition: > > If the text of each phrase requires a pa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Logic of Interpretation

Jon, List: > On Jul 13, 2020, at 8:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > While refraining from posting over the last couple of weeks, I have been > reflecting on my overall approach to Peirce's writings. Some participants > seem to contend that the only valid interpretations of them are those

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis (was Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion)

Robert: After following these exchanges, I remain deeply troubled by the tone of the messages that are offered in the views of CSP’s logic, semantics and mathematics. Other obligations restrict my participation. Nevertheless, at least a simple comment should offer some deep reservations about

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parts of Propositions (was qualisigns)

rminologies (legisigns.) Cheers Jerry > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the classification of signs

Jon: > On May 16, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Second, I have never suggested that the final interpretant "functions BEFORE" > the immediate and dynamical interpretants. What I have argued is that the > final interpretant logically determines the dynamical interpretant, su

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

> On May 15, 2020, at 3:02 AM, michael...@waitrose.com wrote: > > My life history made me interested in the interface between psychology, > epistemology and intuitive logic. My impression was logic includes 3ns: > anyone comment on that please? 3ns is a symbol string used by some CSP student

Re: [PEIRCE-L] tree-structure

List: With respect to the role of “existence”, this concept varies widely in different disciplines. As is often the case, I find John Sowa’s views to be troublesome because of the over-generalizations. While the concept of “generalization” is often a necessary presupposition of mathematical pr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] qualisigns

List: > > JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at all, > for the reason that I already stated--a quality in itself cannot represent > something else as its object, it can only present itself. > > The sign of an object is represented by qualisigns as metrics

Re: [PEIRCE-L] tree-structure

List > On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:55 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > Whenever logicians talk about anything x that exists in any universe of > discourse, they write ∃x in their logic. This assertion is not true for the chemical symbol system. The formal and informal logic of chemistry use the symbol f

Re: [PEIRCE-L] an observation

John: > On Apr 26, 2020, at 10:33 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > I am certain that the issues in that book you cited are unrelated to what I > was doing. To draw a conclusion without reading the propositions is not logical. Cheers Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click

Re: [PEIRCE-L] an observation

> On Apr 26, 2020, at 5:39 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > Because in mathematics and logic, there is no double standard. There is one > and only one absolutely precise criterion that determines whether or not two > expressions are exact translations of one another: a formal proof. I am not aw

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Logic of Language: A Semiotic Introduction to the Study of Speech

Michael, List: Thank you for posting your provocative introduction. The broad range of your interests are apparent and of deep interact to me. Many of my “quarrels” with the science-society interface emerge from the different understandings of words - as precision instruments of logic or as en

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea

Edwinia: > On Apr 7, 2020, at 7:44 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > to 'capitalism' which is, after all, an economic system based around the > individual freedom of private enterprise; By ignoring the concepts of fairness, equality, justice, brotherhood/sisterhood, freedom, opportunity, human

Re: [PEIRCE-L] TEST

Test of test. :-) Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 30, 2020, at 5:56 AM, frances.ke...@sympatico.ca wrote: > > TEST > > > - > 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Looked up Boscovich or Boscovitch

List, Ben: Your response clearly addressed the neighborhoods of concern. Thank You. The article by Esposito clearly addresses the conundrums that are so often overlooked. It deserves careful perusal. The only significant comment I would make is from a historical perspective of the emergence

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A few loose ends - nonions vs. novenions; Galilean vs. Lorentz; surprising continuity

List: Just a couple of footnotes to the historical CSP quote from 1898. CSP assertion "no doubt Boscovichian points” is critical to attempts to decipher his logics. The mathematics of “Boscovichian points” remains to be described. Does a “Boscovichian point” occupy space? Contain mass? Hav

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

List: > On Aug 28, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > How might we study something as complex as a highly folded, twisted and > knotted space? As with any kind of relatively complex topological space, it > helps to decompose that space into its component parts. As such, we c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon: > On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Those are interesting questions, but I suggest that we first explore a more > fundamental one--what is a dimension in this context? > > According to Wikipedia , "the > dimension of a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary If one reads CSP more carefully, one finds strands of science, especially math and chemistry, in almost every sentence. The unity of his thinking appears to me to be the bedrocks from which his sentences take form. Almost always, the semiosis of the sin-sign necessarily infers an index,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

> On Aug 22, 2019, at 11:04 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 8/21/2019 1:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: >> I suggest that [Peirce] could have offered an argument against >> [the Big Bang] -- in fact, against any theory that posits a finite >> age and definite beginning of the universe... > > No.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The functionality of Peircean semiosis

wina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 7:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > >> Edwina: >> >> First, to be clear about the issues involved. >> >> 1. The chemical science are based o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The functionality of Peircean semiosis

cess DOES apply to > ‘matter’, and to my knowledge, ‘matter’ is a ‘chemical entity’. > > Second - I’ve no idea what ‘ontological status within natural philosophy’ > means. > > Edwina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <mailt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The functionality of Peircean semiosis

List: > On Jul 15, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > >>> This analytic framework, I suggest, can be used to describe and analyze all >>> complex adaptive systems. For one example - take speciation of the >>> progressive movement to diversity and complexity -- for example, plant

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entitative and Existential Graphs (was Semeiosis and Experience)

Jon, List: > On Jun 27, 2019, at 8:38 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > GR: They seem at first glance to me to be something of mirror images of each > other, especially as I've read that the alpha part of existential graphs is > dual to entitative graphs in the sense of an "involution operati

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiosis and Experience Ralph Cudworth,

; weakness of will, camouflaged as supersticion, and atheism is a belief. > Helmut > > Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Juni 2019 um 20:18 Uhr > Von: "Jerry LR Chandler" > An: "Peirce List" > Cc: "John F Sowa" > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiosis and Experienc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiosis and Experience Ralph Cudworth,

List: > On Jun 17, 2019, at 11:16 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > See the final sentence by > Peirce in the paragraph from R 280: "The Graphist must be regarded > as corresponding to the “Plastic Nature” of Cudworth, or else to the > Artifex of Nature." > > When Peirce cites sources, it's importan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Harmonize and synthesize (was Semiosis ...

> On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:50 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > No! Peirce never rejected anything unless he found a > new version that subsumed everything useful in the earlier version > *and* the new version demonstrated a fatal flaw in the earlier. It has been a stressful day; I really need

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semeiosis and Complex Systems (was Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited)

thetic toward your concerns about the linkages between semiosis and the life sciences. > > On Tue 28/05/19 2:54 PM , Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com sent: > > Edwina: > > > > Facts are facts. > Scientific realism is what it is. > > > C

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semeiosis and Complex Systems (was Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited)

#x27;a map. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 28/05/19 1:59 PM , Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com sent: > > Jon, List: > > A bit of nit-picking below, particularly in light of the organic chemistry > /bedrock claim. > >> On May 27, 2019, at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semeiosis and Complex Systems (was Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited)

Jon, List: A bit of nit-picking below, particularly in light of the organic chemistry /bedrock claim. > On May 27, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Suppose, then, that an absolutely correct and infinitely detailed map of > Governor's Island in New York Harbour be laid down on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

> On May 21, 2019, at 1:27 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > GR >> I truly doubt that Jon needs your "help," while insulting and >> hubristic comments such as saying that if he refuses to accept your >> "help" that he has "nothing but a puffy cloud of words" is, in my >> opinion, below any serious scho

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Symbols and Syntax (was Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols)

Gary, List: > On Apr 20, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > In this regard and, for example, it would appear that Kilivila doesn't > express 'causation' or, perhaps, one might say 'process', 'growth', etc. As > the article quoted from would have it, there appear to be in some languages

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Symbols and Syntax (was Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols)

Dan, List: > On Apr 21, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Dan Everett wrote: > > Yes, Jon, but Peirce was wrong. > > These lexical decompositions are done by logicians. > > Peirce unfortunately missed the boat on this and there is no solution from > logic, because it is logic that points out the errors of P

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols - and the meaning of Chemical Bedrocks.

List, Helmut: > On Apr 19, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > Jerry, list, > > instead of assuming different kinds of mathematics, I rather think, that, > additionally to the rules of mathematics, in nature sciences, constants and > axioms play a role, which are not deduced by mathe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Dan, List: > On Apr 19, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Dan Everett wrote: > > Also Steve Piantadosi (Berkeley Psychology) has shown that all the memory > needed for much of language is about 1.5 megabytes, a small amount, with the > amount of memory required for syntax neglible, more evidence that symbols

[PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols - and the meaning of Chemical Bedrocks.

List: Genuine triads are of three kinds. For while a triad if genuine cannot be in the world of quality nor in that of fact, yet it may be a mere law, or regularity, of quality or of fact. But a thoroughly genuine triad is separated entirely from those worlds and exists in the universe of repre

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

y of chemistry.” Nor do you appear to get my point about a major shift > in Peirce’s thinking. So instead of mutual determination, we seem to have > mutual incomprehension! > > Gary f. > > > > From: Jerry LR Chandler > Sent: 4-Apr-19 19:00 > To: g...@gnusystems.ca

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

GaryF., List Are you making a second major shift in your system of beliefs about CSP writings? First on the role of chemistry and now the role of mathematics! If so, then I would suggest that your cognitive patterns are under radical reformation. In fact, the chemical perspective is, then and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

List, Jon: > On Apr 1, 2019, at 7:05 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > I am afraid that I do not understand your questions. What conjecture? The sentence: > I suspect that those difficulties are what forced him back to treating a Cut > as negation and a Line of Identity that appears to cross o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

Jon: > On Apr 1, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > As we have discussed before, Peirce encountered severe limitations in trying > to represent modality (other than true/false) with only two dimensions. I > suspect that those difficulties are what forced him back to treating a Cut

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatics and Peirce

Jerry R: Your remarks reflect, in many ways, the views of both the scientific and philosophic communities at large. CSP scholars have yet to clearly demonstrate either how or why CSP writings are at least as good as other representations of nature or logic or of the nature of logic. Intentiona

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic - and Bedrocks.

List: This is a conjecture about an example from CSP that could be example of what CSP meant by organic chemistry as the logical bedrock for his notions of graph theory. It is also meant to show HOW CSP’s occult usage of lexical fields obscures the meaning of logical chemical bedrocks. It also

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

strange remarks about inorganic chemistry in the “Bedrock” draft — > actually I was hoping someone else would! > > Gary f. > > > From: Jerry LR Chandler > Sent: 30-Mar-19 20:02 > To: Peirce List > Cc: Gary Fuhrman > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

zontal ranks in the same > table. Those columns are characterized by their several valencies, thus: He, > Ne, A, Kr, X are medads ... (CP 1.289; 1906) > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > ww

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic Open Question>

List, > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:21 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > In the present application, a medad must mean an indecomposable idea > altogether severed logically from every other; a monad will mean an element > which, except that it is thought as applying to some subject, has no other > c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

List, Gary: > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:21 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > In chemistry, a medad is an atom of valency zero, As far as I am aware, the term “medad” is not now used in the chemical sciences and I can not recall ever seeing this term in the technical literature of the chemical scie

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List: The topic of this comment is p.23 f of the transcript of Gary F. and the moving picture of thought in relation to the System of Existential Graphs. The System of Existential Graphs may be characterized with great truth as presenting before our eyes a moving picture of thought. Provided t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

(List, This a both a correction of typos and an significant extension of the original post. As I continue to work on the Bedrock paper and the plethora of implications for modern scientific re-interpretations of CSP deep encoding of the semiotics of the chemical sciences, I plan to post sporadi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was Ambiguities...

List, Francesco: Thank you for your novel post. It raises to questions. > On Mar 25, 2019, at 2:05 AM, Francesco Bellucci > wrote: > > Of course, when formalized through FOL that "grammatical" subject will become > a predicate, while the "logical" subject would be a quantified variable 1.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, GaryF, Jon, John, Steven, Joseph S.: > On Mar 2, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote: > > "But this is not what I mean, nor what is generally meant, by a collection of > absolutely independent members. What I mean by that expression is that every > member is distinguished from e

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was Ambiguities...

Jon: Excellent post! Cheers Jerry > On Mar 22, 2019, at 10:17 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > John, List: > > The new thread title is alarmist hyperbole, and the post below--after > offering the kind of non-apology apology > that is all

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

Joe, List: > On Mar 21, 2019, at 6:43 PM, joseph simpson wrote: > > John Sowa's statements were given in the context of 'proposition analysis.' > > From the "Handbook of Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics," page 5: > > "logically equivalent propositions: compound propositions that involve

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (prelude to Ambiguities...

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:31 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Jerry >>> JFS: You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause. >>> >> This is not even an argument. The sentence does reflect on its >> author’s capacities. > > It's not a comment on his capacity. It's a comment on his refusal to > a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (prelude to Ambiguities...

List, John: > On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:31 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Jerry >>> No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction >>> between subject and predicate. >> Again, I find this dogmatic statement to be a personal claim that is without >> general scientific meaning. This sta

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

John, List: > On Mar 21, 2019, at 3:01 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction >between subject and predicate. Again, I find this dogmatic statement to be a personal claim that is without general scientific meaning. This statement is simp

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

List, Jon, John: Comments are interspersed. > On Mar 21, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > John, List: > > JFS: You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause. > This is not even an argument. The sentence does reflect on its author’s capacities. > I have made my case, a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

t; > I do not feel compelled to state the simple question again. > > Do you have the ability to provide a simple answer? > > Take care, have fun and be good to yourself, > > Joe > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:52 PM Jerry LR Chandler > mailt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

f, I am good to myself and I enjoy life. May I ask you to gather up you courage and express what you mean? If you lack the courage to participate in a public forum, then please communicate with me in private. Cheers Jerry > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:17 PM Jerry LR Chandler >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John > On Mar 20, 2019, at 8:34 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > JAS >> We simply prefer different but equally valid (and equally Peircean) >> analyses of a proposition--you throw everything possible into the >> predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I throw everything >> possible into th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John: > On Mar 21, 2019, at 10:07 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Peirce's terminology for EGs evolved over the years from 1897 to 1911. I believe that this judgment is a extraordinary shallow and incomplete view of the bedrock of CSP’s philosophy and particularly in the origin of his “exist

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:14 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 3/20/2019 11:37 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: >> I thought a Medad was (by definition) a graph with no loose ends. > > NEM 3:164 (or p. 4 of eg1911.pdf) says > "A graph or graph instance having 0 pe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John: > On Mar 12, 2019, at 7:41 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Anything can be classified in an open-ended variety of ways for an > open-ended variety of reasons. This remark is rather strange for scientific pragmaticism. How one forms categories of thought is an extremely important issue

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John: > On Mar 11, 2019, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > the word 'Term', which means 'predicate'. If my memory serves me correctly, the word “term" derives from the middle ages, perhaps Peter of Spain? It is a shortened form of the word “terminal” which simply represents the begin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

ledge of AI and Organic Chemistry, on the content of what I wrote? Cheers Jerry Headwater House Little Falls, MN > On Mar 5, 2019, at 9:56 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 3/5/2019 4:15 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> the newly transcribed Bedrock manuscript concerning the rol

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

Gary F., List: Gary, thank you very very much for your transcription of Bedrock text. When time permits, I may comment in greater detail on the chemical aspects, since these aspects play a deep role in the necessity of embedding CSP logical style either within the logical style of organic chemi

[PEIRCE-L] Seeking Manuscript # R-1041

List: The Harvard site and the Commens dictionary list the following manuscript: Id: MS [R] 1041 Year: 1905 Description: Robin Catalogue: A. MS., n.p., [1905], pp. 1-26, with 6 pp. of variants. CSP sets out to discuss “the mode of composition of ideas,” developing an analogy between simple id

Re: The Nature of Peirce's Phenomenology, was: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy

List, Gary: > On Feb 20, 2019, at 3:57 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > JC: Could you explain the meaning that you wish to convey in terms of other > philosophers usage of the term? That is, historical? or contemporary? > > For now I'll only say that Peirce phenomenology appears to me so completel

Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy

Gary, List: > On Feb 19, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > At the moment I cannot think of how phenomenology might address that question > which seems to me at the moment to be a strictly semeiotic one. But it is a > most interesting question which I hope we can pursue further in disc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

Jon, List: > On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > JLRC: In this context, CSP asserted that his was a ‘logic of proper names’ > (legisigns). If you are looking for the exact text from CSP, try searching under "algebra of Proper Names”. > > Where did he ever make su

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

Jon, List: > On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Which of my "multitudes of assertions about the nature of [my] > interpretations of CSP’s assertions" do I specifically need to clarify > further by constructing some examples? Obviously "all of them" would not be > a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

one predicate. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] EGs and phaneroscopy

List, Jeff: > On Feb 9, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > For my part, I take the logical arguments for the categories to be based on > the requirements for having valid arguments as well as meaningful > propositions and terms. The question that he articulates in "On the Lo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > How can subjects be disjoint from predicates if they can denote properties? > How can predicates by themselves be "true of things" when only a complete > proposition is capable of being true or false? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

List, John: Recent posts to this list serve have highlighted certain aspects of grammar with respect to logic. Here, I would make a simple comment in relation to grammar and logics. The reader is referred to G. Sher, Epistemic Frictions (Oxford, 2016) for background discussion. > On Feb 7, 20

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

John, List: Although your post deserves a longer comment, my time is limited and I will constrain myself to two or three issues. > On Feb 7, 2019, at 10:29 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Everything Peirce wrote about semeiotic, from first to last, was > based on his math and logic. Since math and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God

view account for emergence? Cheers Jerry > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:58 AM Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Stephen: > > The nature of transcendence is an intriguing challenge in most disciplines > because of the meaning of its

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God

Stephen: The nature of transcendence is an intriguing challenge in most disciplines because of the meaning of its L. root. Can you clarify how transcendence relates to the scope and scale of predicates? Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPad > On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

List, Edwinia: > On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > JC: In response to your question, one uses the word in a context appropriate. > Thats how new words entry into the evolution of language. > > EDWINA: > To declare that 'one uses the word in a context appropriate' doesn't

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > 1] By all means - one can choose the words one uses. But if very few > understand them - then, how functional is your communication? In response to your question, one uses the word in a context appropriate. Thats how new words entry in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

> On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose > wrote: > > This makes it impossible any more to go with much but the now. The challenge is to find the paths between one’s understanding of history and current historical events. It is a sorting and match process between oneself and the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

List, John: > On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:16 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > That means that the word 'seme' is obsolete. One of the basic attributes of intellectual freedom is the right to choose the words one uses. I am quite certain that John did not intend to restrict discussion with this emotiona

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, Tokens, Instances

List, Jon > On Jan 25, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > How should we characterize these various ways of uttering the same > Proposition? For example ... > We are going to the restaurant. > We are going to the restaurant? > We are going to the restaurant! These three sentence h

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

John, List: > On Jan 23, 2019, at 2:42 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Basic principle: I hope that we can make Peirce's ideas more widely > known and used in the 21st c. Unusual words that Peirce rarely used > himself are not likely to attract new readers. I believe that it's > not useful to revi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

Jon, List: > On Jan 23, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > "Continuation" is a noun, while "continuous" is an adjective, so I do not see > how one could be substituted directly for the other; and "continuation" > certainly has a different meaning from "continuum." > Huh? Are y

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

rarily mark on the > corresponding line. As a Sign (Type), each of the Phemes is analogous to a > continuous plane defined by the two lines for the Semes that it involves, and > any isolated Instance (Token) of each is analogous to the discrete point > where those lines intersect. As

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

List, Jon: > On Jan 19, 2019, at 8:18 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > This initially suggests a Seme as a point, a Pheme as a line defined by two > points, and a Delome as a plane defined by three points that also define > three lines. It is of interest recall the CSP definitions of the t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

List, This post amends the typos in last post and extended the questions about the role of feelings in continuous semiosis. > On Jan 12, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > >> On Jan 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

> On Jan 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > JFS: Can anyone give an example of continuous semiosis in language or > reasoning? > > ... is impossible to fulfill. Any concrete example that anyone could give > would instead consist of Instances as discrete Tokens. As for you

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

universal basis for semiosis, then I would speculate > that an unbounded number of pragmatic examples of triadic triples should > exist and be as common as the falling leaves in the autumn. > > John, would you like to comment on your reasoning? > Do you have any other examples whe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] the sexuality of methodeutic

Jon: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: (From EP 2:203-204) > > In addition however to denoting objects, every sign sufficiently complete > signifies characters, or qualities But what is the meaning of this phrase? In particular, when can we distinguish between a sign t

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

autumn. John, would you like to comment on your reasoning? Do you have any other examples where data was actually used in the network described? Cheers Jerry > On Nov 18, 2018, at 9:08 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > List, > > This post continues the inquiry i

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

bductive reasoning. Cheers Jerry > On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > List, JAS, > > First, thank you Jon for the reference to J K Sheriff’s work. > > His table of relations among the triadic triples is rather cute. Cute, but > hardly

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

gt; <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:23 PM Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List, JonAS: > > Shortly after you posted

Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

<http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List, Jon: > > I personally find it difficult

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >