To: tabor...@primus.ca; Jerry LR Chandler
> Cc: Peirce List
> Subject: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
>
> Edwina, list:
>
> I don’t have access to my Peirce data right now, but I do disagree with the
> claim that Peirce does not allow for something prior to semio
Dear Jacob,
Let me express my condolences on your loss. We'll
miss your father's contributions to this list and to the study of Peirce's
writings and their relationship to linguistics.
When I read your
note, I checked your father's list of publications at
https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle
for coopting this conversation.
Sincerely,
Jacob Pyle
From: Charles Pyle
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 9:09 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Jerry LR Chandler
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
Edwina, list:
I don’t have access to my Peirce data right now, but I do
s. What is so gathered is not COLLATERAL. It is on the contrary the prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the Sign. (CP 8.179, EP 2:494, 1909)
---end quote
And finally, as I recall in defining existential graphs Peirce held that the sheet of assertion represents truth, the context wit
---end quote
And finally, as I recall in defining existential graphs Peirce held
that the sheet of assertion represents truth, the context within
which assertions are inscribed.
Regards,
Charles Pyle
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 8
Peirce’s doctrine
> of the tripartite nature of the sign. And the idea that there is a truth that
> is prior to semiosis, in my opinion, also is consistent with Peirce’s
> thinking.
>
> Cheers,
> Charles Pyle
>
>
>
> From: Jerry LR Chandler
> Sent: Mon
Edwinia:
> On Nov 23, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> My understanding of Peirce is that there is nothing outside of semiosis!
This is not my understanding of CSP realism.
I recall a text that, roughly speaking, asserts that signs are “emanations” of
“sin-signs” as objects. Obje
; <https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle>
>
> Charles Pyle
>
> From: Helmut Raulien
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:25 PM
> To: Charles Pyle
> Cc: Peirce-L
> Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
>
> Charles,
> wow, interesting!
8:11 PM
To: Jerry LR Chandler ; Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
Charles, list:
I don't see how you can assert that, " there is a truth that is
prior to semiosis, in my opinion, also is consistent with Peirce’s
thinki
November 23, 2020 8:11 PM
To: Jerry LR Chandler ; Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
Charles, list:
I don't see how you can assert that, " there is a truth that is prior to
semiosis, in my opinion, also is consistent with Peirce’s th
nt: Monday, November 23, 2020 6:57 PM
To: Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: 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.
thinking.
Cheers,
Charles Pyle
From: Jerry LR Chandler
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 6:57 PM
To: Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: 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
which can be found here: https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle
Charles Pyle
From: Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:25 PM
To: Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
Charles,
wow, interesting! I think about it. By first glance
y, November 22, 2020 4:25 PM
To: Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
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, looki
ion in the context of Peirce’s theory
of signs in “Wild Language” which can be found here:
https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle [1]
Charles Pyle
From: Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:25 PM
To: Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-va
Raulien
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:25 PM
To: Charles Pyle
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
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
underlying them.
Charles Pyle
https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle
From: Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 11:00 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
List,
As Peircean semiotics is a three-valued logic, I think it bears rel
you cannot just deconstruct a few pairs of words without attacking the logic
underlying them.
Charles Pyle
https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle
From: Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 11:00 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic
List,
As Peircean semiotics
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
