RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

I see you got the point, Jerry.  Gary f. From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] Sent: 22-Jun-17 19:20 gary f, list: "I have given the reader such a dose of mathematics, psychology, and all that is most abstruse, that I fear he may already have left me, and that what I am

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary r, list: Speaking then, of rheme and reason in: “Man,” if it can be said to mean anything by itself, means “what I am thinking of is a man.” What do you suppose is the method that gives only one meaning to the following? “For only he who is man enough, will - save the woman in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary F wrote: " I was referring to the larger text or dialogue in which the term is embedded, not to the context of the reader’s personal history." Jerry R asked: how do you tell the two apart? I personally see no difficulty in distinguishing them--indeed, they are *quite* distinct in my

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

gary f, list: "I have given the reader such a dose of mathematics, psychology, and all that is most abstruse, that I fear he may already have left me, and that what I am now writing is for the compositor and proof-reader exclusively. I trusted to the importance of the subject." Best, J On Thu,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Jerry R, http://gnusystems.ca/TS/ntx.htm gary f. From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] Sent: 22-Jun-17 18:26 Gary f, how do you tell the two apart? Best, jerry r On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:08 PM, > wrote: Jon, I'm

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary f, how do you tell the two apart? Best, jerry r On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:08 PM, wrote: > Jon, I'm not sure what you're driving at on these roads, but when I > suggested that terms should always be “taken in context” by a > reader/listener, I was referring to the

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Jon, I'm not sure what you're driving at on these roads, but when I suggested that terms should always be “taken in context” by a reader/listener, I was referring to the larger text or dialogue in which the term is embedded, not to the context of the reader’s personal history. Gary f.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Jon, I like your tenor, but do not quite agree. Yes, linguistics has changed just as you say. But logic? In my view, the very grounds of modern logic are groumbling down. But it is an ongoing process, with no predictable end. Now we live in late modern ot early post modern times. Just to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Thank you, John (again) for clearing up the issue with utmost clarity! Gratefully, Kirsti John F Sowa kirjoitti 18.6.2017 16:39: On 6/17/2017 5:45 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: The term "positive" is the word that Peirce uses to describe the character of the philosophical sciences--as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

On 6/19/2017 12:38 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: I’ve just read your article on “Peirce's contributions to the 21st century” (http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf)... I couldn’t explain what’s wrong with it as clearly as you have. (especially in your section on “logical negativism.” I got

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

e! Gary f. } It takes a long time to learn that life is short. [gnox] { http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway -----Original Message- From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] Sent: 18-Jun-17 17:35 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rhem

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

On 6/18/2017 3:50 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: few workers in these fields today would consider semiotics, or logic, or philosophy, to be “empirical sciences” according to current usage, although they are all “positive sciences” for Peirce, so we can’t really substitute the one for the other

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

rical sciences" according to current usage, although they are all "positive sciences" for Peirce, so we can't really substitute the one for the other in discourse. Gary f. -Original Message- From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] Sent: 18-Jun-17 09:40 To: peirce-l@l

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

On 6/17/2017 5:45 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: The term "positive" is the word that Peirce uses to describe the character of the philosophical sciences--as well as the special sciences. They are positive (and not merely ideal) in that they study real things and not idealizations. In the

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

gmail.com] Sent: 17-Jun-17 17:59 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason Gary F, Jeff, John S, list, A half hour or so I wrote to Jeff off-list to say regarding his most recent post: The crucial distinction you've made here between the the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 2:58 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason Gary F, Jeff, John S, list, A half hour or so I wrote to Jeff off-list to say regarding his most recent post: The crucial distinction you've made

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary F, Jeff, John S, list, A half hour or so I wrote to Jeff off-list to say regarding his most recent post: The crucial distinction you've made here between the theoretic and the idioscopic sciences is, I believe, at the heart of the matter, whatever the 'normative' concerns may be. So I'm

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

;s...@bestweb.net> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 1:52 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason On 6/17/2017 3:22 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: > I think we are general agreement. I think we mostly agree. But I don't see any need for the term 'positive scie

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

On 6/17/2017 3:22 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: I think we are general agreement. I think we mostly agree. But I don't see any need for the term 'positive science'. I would say 'empirical' instead of 'positive' in the sentence "Every positive science must describe and make testable

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Jeff, Gary R (and list), I think John has dealt with your question here, Jeff, in a way that I can't improve on. But I also wonder if you are classifing speculative grammar (which is part of "logic" in Peirce's broad sense) as "normative" simply because you've subsumed all of semiotics under

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

sor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:42 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason Jon A, Gary F, and Je

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Jon A, Gary F, and Jeff BD, Jon The most important difference between linguistics and logic is that linguistics is descriptive while logic is normative. No. Grammars and dictionaries have traditionally been considered normative. Note l'Académie française. Modern linguists emphasize the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

between logical “grammar” and linguistic “grammar” is by no means accidental. I say “amen” to John’s remarks here. Gary f. -Original Message- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 17-Jun-17 00:01 To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

:53 AM To: 'Jon Awbrey'; 'Peirce List' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason Jon, what you say is true of logic in the narrow sense. But Peirce invested the greater part of his attention to semiotics in what he called speculative grammar, which is not a normative science but a descripti

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

” is by no means accidental. I say “amen” to John’s remarks here. Gary f. -Original Message- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 17-Jun-17 00:01 To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason John, Kirsti, List ... The most imp

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

John, you've made several important points here, and thanks especially for taking Jerry C's question off my hands.  A note about AI … back in the 1970s I played go quite a bit and got reasonably good at it. At that time, chess-playing programs were just beginning to reach the higher

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary F, Jerry LRC, and Jerry R, GF Computability is not the core issue, when you define logic pragmatically as “the science of the laws of the stable establishment of beliefs” (CP 3.429). When you use the term "pragmatically", the issues of how that stable establishment can be achieved in a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Dear list: h, I like where this conversation is headed, for you cannot have this conversation without ultimately lighting on syllogism. :) Best, J On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > Gary: > > On Jun 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary: > On Jun 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > but as Peirce always said, logic is a positive science while mathematics is > not. Computability is not the core issue, when you define logic pragmatically > as “the science of the laws of the stable establishment of beliefs”

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

er is sufficiently accurate to represent the relevant details. See the excerpt below from my previous note. John -------- Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason Date: 6/12/2017 3:00 PM From: John F Sowa ... [Although Peirce was careful to distinguish sy

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

les can derive semantic truths -- but only if (a) the rules are sound, and (b) the mapping of the diagram to and from the subject matter is sufficiently accurate to represent the relevant details. See the excerpt below from my previous note. John Forwarded Message ---- Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Jon A., List: JA: As I am realizing more and more in recent years, analyzing and classifying signs as a substitute for analyzing and classifying objects is the first slip of a slide into nominalism, namely, the idea that the essence or reality of objects is contained in the signs we use to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

On 6/11/2017 5:08 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: An icon is an icon when it's interpreted as an icon. An index is an index when it's interpreted as an index. The same goes for term, sentence, argument by any name. The first two sentences are true. But the third is false. In natural languages and