any other. You will find in these States 'identity blocs' or people living in homogenic communities that are isolated from each other - i.e., they are not inclusive of each other but isolated from each other - and even, quite hostile to each other.
Edwina
On Mon 25/02/19 12:40 P
d communities for the wealthy is as rigid in its beliefs as any other. You will find in these States 'identity blocs' or people living in homogenic communities that are isolated from each other - i.e., they are not inclusive of each other but isolated from each other - and even, quite hostile
na
On Mon 25/02/19 2:28 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
OOps, i forgot the worst: Derailed capitalism.
I agree that I have put it too simply. But I think, that tribalism is xenophobic, natural, and instinctive (not custom-habitual). But "natural"
ssary self-identity. Thirdness is the functioning of that crystal within the physico-chemical laws for the formation of crystals.
Edwina
On Tue 26/02/19 12:04 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, list,
I think, that capitalism is derailed when the market is not fr
Can you imagine words that have no boundaries and thus - are without meaning? Even a word 'the' has a distinct beginning and end.
Edwina
On Wed 27/02/19 11:41 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, list,
I think I argee with you, only have or have had
undaries.
Can you imagine words that have no boundaries and thus - are without meaning? Even a word 'the' has a distinct beginning and end.
Edwina
On Wed 27/02/19 11:41 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, list,
I think I argee with you, only have
n "if C then B"?
If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www
quot; "A is true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)" is false.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Jon,
I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false",
Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph visually illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)." "A is true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)" is false.
Regards,
Jon S.
from true premisses.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:51 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Supplement: I mean, I need some time and post later something when I will have occupied myself with the EGs, but you may answer now! Best!
Edwina, Jo
s from A." Validity in deductive logic is precisely the requirement that a false conclusion can never be derived from true premisses.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:51 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Supplement: I mean, I need some time a
List,
Peirce suggested a pile of sheets of assertion, between whose sheets items are connected with threads through pinholes. I was wondering why he did not suggest transparent paper. It was invented at his time, and used for copying too, but I dont know, how transparent and how easily available i
roposition is true. However, I do not believe that it is an accurate translation of "B derives from A." Validity in deductive logic is precisely the requirement that a false conclusion can never be derived from true premisses.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019
" or "not (B and not A)." If A is true and B is false, then this proposition is true. However, I do not believe that it is an accurate translation of "B derives from A." Validity in deductive logic is precisely the requirement that a false conclusion can never be deriv
List,
I think, that the "existential graphs" don´t have to do with existence in the first place, that is with things that do exist, or phenomena of the real world, but rather with semes(?) that origin in reflection, reflection of reflection, and so on. Do they exist? Are they real? Are they phenom
Supplement: It is a question of outsourcing or insourcing. What do we want. Do we want to keep the form of EGs as they are, then we outsource the question of reflection. But do we want to have some more fun, or, eh, work? Then why not insource the topic about reflection in some way. Peirce can
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:16 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Supplement: It is a question of outsourcing or insourcing. What do we want. Do we want to keep the form of EGs as they are, then we outsource the question of reflection. But do we want to have some more fun, or
ibberly) even in the case of what shoots through our own minds, it is much safer to define all mental characters as far as possible in terms of their outward manifestations. ~ Peirce
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:16 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Supplement: It is a
what [we] can even glimpse at best but very glibberly) even in the case of what shoots through our own minds, it is much safer to define all mental characters as far as possible in terms of their outward manifestations. ~ Peirce
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:16 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.d
Jerry, List,
did I get it right, that "individuation" is just a thought-experiment about what and how a thing (or law...) would be, if it was totally rid of any representation? just, what a "thing in itself" would be: Something incomprehensible for the scholastic doctors, as Gary wrote? Not only
Jon, List,
You wrote:
"To be honest, given that the Sign relation is genuinely triadic, I have never fully understood why Peirce initially classified Signs on the basis of one correlate and two dyadic relations. Perhaps others on the List can shed some light on that."
I have a guess about
Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Jon, List,
You wrote:
"To be honest, given that the Sign relation is genuinely triadic, I have never fully understood w
s (Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign) divides the Sign itself as a correlate, not a relation; the dyadic relation of anything to itself is simply identity.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSc
rks. There is the
> level of intension, or rational concepts, and there is the level of extension,
> or empirical cases.
>
> Well, the striking of the grandfather clock tells me
> it's time for Big Bang Theory, so I'll have to break ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
>
Jon, List,
Thank you, Jon! Your point No. 2 is new to me, that some define relation not only as the subset of the domainses´ cartesian product, but as that plus a list of the domains.
In case the subset is not a random one, but a consequence of some reasonable classification, eg. in a dyadic rel
Jeff, List,
Are these two contexts (semiotic theory, metaphysic theory) separatable? In the semiotical context, the categories rather are "possibility, actuality, law", and in the metaphysical context perhaps rather "quality, relation, representation", maybe. I think, that a lower categorical thi
Supplement: Just googled "metaphysics". Seems to have some ugly, pretentious, megalomanic connotations. I did not mean it in that way, rather like abstraction of nature, or like looking for conditions for knowledge and experience: What else are categories? Not a contradiction to phenomenology
ects of contemplation relative to
the end in view, and so this relates to the intensional view
of subject matters.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/15/2017 2:49 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> Thank you, Jon! Your point No. 2 is new to me, that some
> define relation not only as the subset of th
Jon, John, List,
Is it reasonable to say that a relation has an intension and an extension, the intension is firstness, and the extension secondness (of the relation, which is secondness)?
Best,
Helmut
20. April 2017 um 15:14 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa"
Jon,
That is an extensional definitio
go but not yet finished:
Peirce's Logic Of Information
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce%27s_Logic_Of_Information
It has the advantage of having a nicely self-explanatory figure right up front.
At any rate, try taking a look at that ...
Regards,
Jon
On 4/20/2017 4:47 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
s independent of the number of members of the
relationship. Whether this reason for the fact that there is no fourth class of terms fundamentally different from the
third is satisfactory of not, the fact itself is made perfectly evident by the study of the logic of relatives.
(Peirce, CP 3.63).
On 4
whether I am overestimating the relevance of this question.
Best,
Helmut
23. April 2017 um 02:31 Uhr
Von: "Jerry LR Chandler"
(This post corrects and adds to the previous post) JLRC )
Helmut, List:
On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrot
elation to prevent all the
relational domains from being the same. So I'll leave that open for now.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/21/2017 4:59 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> I am not so sure, if thirdness is about any triadic relation.
> The categories in Peirce's "new list&qu
Jon, Jerry, List,
Quote Jon:
"On account of this social character of inquiry, even those states of knowledge which might be arrived at through accidental, gratuitous, idiosyncratic, transcendental, or otherwise inexplicable means are useless for most human purposes unless they can be communicate
Jon, List,
I guess, that the answer to the question, whether or not information is lost due to the projection (of a triadic relation towards three dyadic ones), depends on whether the triadic relation is intransparent, and thus casts three shadow-like pictures, or is sort of transparent, and th
John, Jon, List,
I have not fully understood the example wit Mary and the camera (in Hamburg it is very late now), but I think, that it would be good to replace the concept of "linguistic turn", which is nominalistic, with a kind of "social turn", see the other thread by Jon, about inquiry bein
List,
I am not happy with tychism: Conservation laws require infinite exactness of conservation: Energy or impulse before a reaction must be exactly the same before and after a reaction. Though in a very small (quantum) scale it is not so, but then there must be some kind of counting buffer mecha
Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.: Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness blocks the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and leads to fa
Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in the below text.
Lalala,
Helmut
Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.: Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think that the middle way is the best: Open minded
John, Kirsti, All,
Now I think that it was naiive of me to put "explanation" in opposition to "magical thinking", which "reverses cause and effect". Because cause and effect are reversed all the time in what we call "interaction". And "explanation" has no objective definition, it merely is subjec
List,
I hope that there still is a big step from intelligence to life. I hope that there will never be living, breeding robots without "off"-switches, they would kill us as fast as they could.
Best,
Helmut
14. Juni 2017 um 20:18 Uhr
g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
Gary R, Jon et al.,
Log
Eugene, List,
Very good essay, I think!
Now a sort of blending Niklas Luhmann with Star Trek:
When robots are able to multiply without the help of humans, and are programmed to program themselves and to evolve, then I guess they will fight against every influence that hinders their further evol
Supplement: Some more Science Fiction, not to be taken too seriously, but this time including the belief I agree with, that machines cannot become alive:
The riddle is: There are many planets on which life is possible, the universe is quite old, so why are there no aliens showing up and sayin
Edwina, Gary, List,
I am against utopism too, but I do not see what should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an utopian regime, but a basic-democratic change. And that is not utopian (no place), I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked: Cochabamba, B
cular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on.
As is said: 'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'...
I think pragmatic realism is the sensible path..It doesn't dwell i
recall correctly, against gradual evolution and did suggest 'leaps' in evolutionary change.
That's it.
Edwina
On Mon 26/06/17 8:17 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina,
with "it" I meant a basic-democratic, maybe leap-like, change: In
rce was, if I recall correctly, against gradual evolution and did suggest 'leaps' in evolutionary change.
That's it.
Edwina
On Mon 26/06/17 8:17 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina,
with "it" I meant a basic-democratic, maybe leap
Dear List Members,
In his paper "Salthe´12Axiomathes", Stanley N. Salthe described the two kinds of systems hierarchies: The compositional hierarchy ("Is a part of"), and the subsumptive hierarchy ("Is a kind of"). The latter, I think, may also be called classification hierarchy.
Now, in an
List,
Are trichotomies and triads two different topics? I think so: One is classification, the other composition. "Signs" as a term, I think, is more connected with classification, and "meaning" with composition. Is that so? It is my impression.
And: Is it so, that Peirce called himself a "Pragm
elied too much on
traditional Continental views of the hermeutic circle.
Taking bits and pieces from CSP just does not work. The "pieces" only
work in the context of his work as a whole.
Best, Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.8.2017 01:12:
> List,
> Are trichotomies and triad
ing "too relativistic". The issue
was much more complicated. Best to study CSP's later writings on the
issues involved.
To my mind Apel ended up with many misunderstandings and
misinterpretations in his work on CSP. E.g. he relied too much on
traditional Continental views of t
CSP has written on
this. This work has been immensely useful. In 1980' and early 1990's I
tried to find companions to form a study circe, with no success.
Best, Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.8.2017 22:54:
> Kirsti, List,
> For me both (classification and triads) was and still is c
um 17:15 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler"
wrote:
Helmut, Kirsti, List:
On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
But composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no ma
saunalahti.fi
wrote:
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 4.8.2017 21:06:
> Kirsti,
> you wrote: "Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do.
> According to my
> view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing"."
>
> Instead you wrote about: " Categorical
sti
kirst...@saunalahti.fi kirjoitti 6.8.2017 10:41:
> Helmut,
>
> That is good to know. Thanks.
>
> Kirsti
>
> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 5.8.2017 22:09:
>> Kirsti,
>> you wrote: "I find it difficult to answer your questions, Helmut,
>> because I do not
>>
from earlier posts in an attempt to establish the context of my post and John’s response, which I do not understand. It is a bit confusing, but I think this is a critically important issue with respect to the scientific foundations of semiotics. That is, are all signs emanations?)
On Au
are no signs, but sign tokens and sign types.
So maybe it would be possible to translate all systems theory terms into Peircean "sign-" terms, and not use the term "system" at all?
Best,
Helmut
12. August 2017 um 15:03 Uhr
"John F Sowa"
wrote:
On 8/11/2017
Stephen, John, List,
that a token is often one of "an open-ended variety of types", I find interesting and very agreeable. I have problems with the term "final" or "end" anyway. I guess that the pragmatic maxim is only a proposal how to make our ideas clearer, in order to be able to talk more re
Dear list members,
I have started writing my blog (is it a blog?) about systems theory, based on Peirce´s categories and signs theory. Please criticize it. Usually (as default) I will not mention people´s names, except by quoting from something already published. But please write: "mention me"
Dear List Members,
did Peirce assign the three kinds of inference to the categories? when I think about them, I come to the conclusion, that deduction is firstness, induction secondness, and abduction thirdness:
First the classical way of assignment: Firstness has one mode, secondness two,
Kirsti, John, Tommi, List,
"First in dignity, last in the order of learning": What is meant by "learning"? Is it the learning of the researcher, or the learning of the pupil, who is being taught by the researcher the results of the research? I think, that trying to find out what is behind nature
List,
I don´t know which philosophies were on vogue at that time (1903), but about LL 1.1. and 1.2., I think they apply to later philosophical vogues too: To most that ends with "ism" or "turn". Somebody sees the formerly not seen importance of something (e.g. language, construction of reality, b
Jerry, List,
I think there are different kinds of composition, meaning of being a part of something/ to consist of something. E.g. there is spatial and functional composition. The terms "external", "internal", and I guess "emanation" too can be used for spatial composition only. I guess that set
:
A sign functionally consists of sign, object, interpretant, and an object functionally consists of immediate and dynamical object.
This suggests to me that you completely reject the last few sentences in CP 2.230.
Was that your intent?
Cheers
Jerry
On Sep 25, 2017, at 3
List,
To me, feeling as firstness has nothing to do with pleasure, that would be secondness, or satisfaction, which would be thirdness. Feeling is a quality, pleasure a reaction, and satisfaction includes a mediation I would say. Why did Peirce mix these categories he himself had invented/discove
Gary f., list,
"self-control is reasonableness": This reminds me of Kants critique of pure reason, if you replace "self-control" with autonomy. So- is there always if not to say a war, a competition between the individual´s autonomy, and heteronomy, that is between self-control and other-control?
://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: 2-Oct-17 13:12
Gary f., list,
"self-control is reasonableness": This reminds me of Kants critique of pure reason, if you replace "self-control" with autonomy. So- is
List,
Peirce wrote:"When it is said that all inference “assumes that what seems to be good reasoning is so,” there is an inaccuracy of _expression_. For an inference assumes nothing but its premisses."
I don´t agree. I think, that inferences also assume axioms (e.g. a deduction assumes transi
es are valid. But the conclusion is invalid - I left the sprinkler on.
Your outline of the three methods of reasoning is a different topic than a discussion on ''inference' or 'conclusions'.
Edwina
On Thu 05/10/17 1:42 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent
List, here the last sentence:
"The explanation of the circumstance that the only result that is satisfied with itself is a quality of feeling is that reason always looks forward to an endless future and expects endlessly to improve its results. "
This connection of "self" and "endless" re
Edwina, list,
I completely agree with your outline of what a thing categorially is. My proposal about a thing is: Category 1 is matter/material, cat. 2 is form, and cat. 3 is interaction. 2.1. (firstness of secondness) is the form from the inside, the thing´s perspective, and 2.2. (secondness of
l and atemporal - the universal rationality of Pure Mind. It cannot be described for description belongs to particularities.
And now - I can imagine the reactions of shocked horror at my above outline. ..and the assertions that 'it's not Peirce'. Well- I think it is.
Edwina
O
3 [Pure Thirdness] is aspatial and atemporal - the universal rationality of Pure Mind. It cannot be described for description belongs to particularities.
And now - I can imagine the reactions of shocked horror at my above outline. ..and the assertions that 'it's not Peirce'. Well- I th
is that they include the other modes, which thus makes them degenerate rather than genuine/pure.
I hope I've explained why I describe 3-1 and 3-2 differently from you - though I acknowledge the validity of your points.
Edwina
On Tue 17/10/17 9:31 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul
Gary, list,
I have understood nothing, except, that you may depict an if-then-routine as a set-subset-graph on a blackboard, and also may partially cut off the surface, or stick patches on it. If there is more to it metaphorically or so, I surely am stupid.
Best,
Helmut
26. Oktober 2017 um
Dear list members,
in my website www.signs-in-time.de I have just formulated relation classes, analogously to the Peircean 10 sign classes, though the relation classes are 20. Simple relations they are so far. Relations I guess there will be more, as the topic may grow more and more complicated. I
List,
I have thought about how "if-then" translates from the cuts: If a cut would mean "it is not so, that", it would be: "It is not so, that it rains and it is not so, that a pear is ripe". This is not sufficient for translation, because an "and it" may be understood symmetricallly, therefore it
system
of syntax and not the only basis that Peirce himself took up in his many
syntactic experiments. In relating logical signs to logical objects it
normally proves best to remain flexible and to consider the object of
logic that is common to all its avatars.
Regards,
Jon
On 10/31/2017 3:34 AM,
or a logical system
of syntax and not the only basis that Peirce himself took up in his many
syntactic experiments. In relating logical signs to logical objects it
normally proves best to remain flexible and to consider the object of
logic that is common to all its avatars.
Regards,
Jon
On 10/31/
not the only basis that Peirce himself took up in his many
syntactic experiments. In relating logical signs to logical objects it
normally proves best to remain flexible and to consider the object of
logic that is common to all its avatars.
Regards,
Jon
On 10/31/2017 3:34 AM, Helmut Raulien wro
List,
I understand, that "it hails, and if it hails it is cold" implies that "it hails and it is cold". But is both the same? I think, that information is lost: That it is cold because it hails, and that it does hail not because it is cold, but because in this sheet of assertion it just hails.
conditional de inesse, not a causal relation. So all we know (about this wholly imaginary universe) is that If it hails, it is cold, or no hail without cold, as Jon A. put it; we don’t know why. (Actually, in what we call empirical reality — which has nothing to do with “necessary reasoning” — hai
, the world of sense experience, because knowledge about that is always fallible, and you can’t draw necessary conclusions from fallible premisses.
The question of what “existence” can mean in reference to an imaginary universe will be taken up shortly when we get to the beta part of existentia
Jon, List,
The kind of implication that is linguistically expressed with "a implies b" and "if a then b" is classification, isnt it? I think there are two more kinds of logical implication, which are equally fundamental, though have to be expressed with more words. I think, the three kinds of
17 5:05 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> I think, the three kinds of implication or hierarchy are: Composition,
> power, and classification:
>
> Composition: "a contains b" or "b is a part of a", "if we have a, then
> we have b too".
> Power: "a can have an
, by Boole. I must read Boole (and Peirce and Peano).
Best,
Helmut
18. November 2017 um 17:40 Uhr
"John F Sowa"
wrote:
On 11/17/2017 5:05 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> I think, the three kinds of implication or hierarchy are: Composition,
> power, and classification:
>
, and classification were treated mathematically, by Boole. I must read Boole (and Peirce and Peano).
Best,
Helmut
18. November 2017 um 17:40 Uhr
"John F Sowa"
wrote:
On 11/17/2017 5:05 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> I think, the three kinds of implication or hierarchy are
Mike, List,
I especially like your table "C.S. Peirce’s Universal Categories in Relation to Various Topics". Just one thing: Peirce later replaced "quality, relation, representation", as which he had named the categories in "On a new list of categories" with "quality, reaction, mediation" (I d
Gary, Jon, List,
To the question, whether "categories" are "elements" or "universes" I can say little how Peirce has answered to this, but I would say, based on my contemporary dealing with the difference between composition and classification:
I think, that "universes" sounds like classificatio
I wrote both, "a sign consists of sign, object, and interpretant", and: "A sign consists of sign relation, object relation, and interpretant relation". To me (in my theory) the first kind of consisting is functional composition, and the latter is composition from traits. I just wanted to add t
List,
sorry for the off-topic-ness of this, but at this point I am wondering quite muchly, why these anti-body-dogmatists, who disrespect the human body and its urges so much (I had read something about a red letter "A" for adultery embroidered by a woman on her dress to be worn all her life, jus
List,
is it so, that categories are the er...,well, categories? everything (real and existing, possible and impossible, phenomena and metaphysical ideas) is due to, so both elements and universes are not synonyms for, but things to be classified by categories. Whatever is meant by universes , bu
List,
Because I thought that philosophy, especially pragmatism, should be good for many things, e.g. to counsel politicians (which we all are, somehow), I have now come to certain political statements, for which I have used Peirce (misused? You don´t say! I don´t hope so). I know, you never answer
List,
when i read about the question, whether possibility is a matter of seeming or speculating, then another definition of it comes into my mind: possible is everything that is not impossible, and what is impossible is all that is ruled out by deduction. So possibility is everything minus deduce
Stephen, List, dont be angry about Peirce having been a nerd: Because he was, he was not good with public relations. But if he had not been a nerd, he would not have had all the ideas he has had. Which he did write down, didnt he. About the lack of influence, there is no use of blaming anybody fo
Jon, List,
I think, this post is about the naturalistic fallacy, is it? I want to recomment a writing by Lawrence Kohlberg, whose book "The philosophy of moral development" I have read, and the writing that surely suits to this topic, but which I have not yet read, is called "From is to ought".
figures taken too literally.
For my part, I confess to being rather fickle
as far as faith in a moral universe goes, but
on a good day I try to keep a good thought as
long as I can.
Regards,
Jon
On 12/13/2017 5:53 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> I think, this post is about the
John, List,
The chirality issue somehow rings a bell (of possible relevance) to me. I understand, that a molecule can only be chiral, if it contains more than two atoms. Though I think, that four are reqired: Three define a plain and, and the fourth is either on one or the other side of the plain
Gary, Kirsti, List,
I do not agree, that the geometrical metaphor suits. "Part of", geometrically or spatially understood, is only one kind of being a part of. Kirsti suggested, that meaning is a part of a sign. But is meaning metaphorizable as a point on the line, with the line metphorizable as
Simplest math is recommended by CSP as starting point. To clear our
logical muddles and confusions, so I have inferred.
EGs are based on simple geometrical ideas, such as points and lines.
Which are cafefully developed into logical instruments, vehicles for
logical thinking.
Comments?
Kirst
201 - 300 of 1153 matches
Mail list logo
