RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

List, I must apologize to the list for introducing the term "dot" into this discussion, as Peirce actually uses that term not in Lowell 2, but in some of his other explanations of existential graphs, notably CP 4.438: "Let a heavy dot or dash be used in place of a noun which has been erased from

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

texts, and probably don’t make much sense to those who haven’t read those Peirce texts. Gary f. -Original Message- From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] Sent: 26-Nov-17 08:29 To: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: 'Peirce List' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEI

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] Sent: 26-Nov-17 08:29 To: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: 'Peirce List' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14 Gary f., Seems to me you are mistaken. Categories and elements have a different meaning. It no

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

Jerry, list, JC quoted me: GR: I have no idea where this peculiar comment (GF appearing "to avoid the basic logic of CSP" and his interpretations appearing "to be remote from other interpreters of CSP writings) might mean, nor where it is coming from. Then commented: JC: "H… “… no

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

Gary R, List: > On Nov 26, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I have no idea where this peculiar comment (GF appearing "to avoid the basic > logic of CSP" and his interpretations appearing "to be remote from other > interpreters of CSP writings) might mean,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

on’t think I > can add anything to my last two posts that will clarify their usage in > the terminology of EGs. > Gary f. > -----Original Message- > From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi > <kirst...@saunalahti.fi>] > Sent: 25-Nov-17 15:38 > T

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

t two posts that will clarify their usage in >> the terminology of EGs. >> Gary f. >> -Original Message- >> From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] >> Sent: 25-Nov-17 15:38 >> To: g...@gnusystems.ca >> Cc: 'Peirce List' <pe

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

. -Original Message- From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] Sent: 25-Nov-17 15:38 To: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: 'Peirce List' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14 Gary f., I cannot understand your use of quotation marks. Why say: .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

...@gnusystems.ca Cc: 'Peirce List' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14 Gary f., I cannot understand your use of quotation marks. Why say: ... his "categories"??? Insted of... his categories??? Also, instead or warning against confusing SPOT, DOT an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

List: g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 25.11.2017 21:52: > List, Mary, > Lowell 2.14 introduces the SPOT (which must not be confused with > either the DOT or the BLOT!), and in this connection is worth > comparing with MS 439, the third of the Cambridge Lectures of 1898 >

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

Gary f., I cannot understand your use of quotation marks. Why say: ... his "categories"??? Insted of... his categories??? Also, instead or warning against confusing SPOT, DOT and BLOT, it would have been most interesting to hear how they are related. This is all about relational logic, is

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.14

List, Mary, Lowell 2.14 introduces the spot (which must not be confused with either the dot or the blot!), and in this connection is worth comparing with MS 439, the third of the Cambridge Lectures of 1898 (RLT 146-164, NEM4 331-46). In this lecture given five years before Lowell 2, Peirce