Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

On 4/16/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: Maybe temporality, that what distinguishes "t" from "x,y,z", is the essence of mind? I think we've exhausted most of the issues. If you want one word, I'd say semeiotic. John - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

John, list,   You wrote:   " HR > graphs, as most mathematic symbol language too, does not symbolize > time (continuity)? But: Might it not be possible to do that, by > inventing symbols for time and its flow?   Scientists use the symbol 't' and predicates spelled T-I-M-E in mathematics.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Dear Stephen, list, Thanks for that clear response, With best wishes, Jerry R On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > Absolutely. The words are from my Kindle book Tractatus which is clearly > related to Wittgenstein. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Dear Stephen, list, Your words are lovely. But pray tell, would you accept the following assertion as one that pragmaticists would boast themselves to be? *'the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer .. .'?* With

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

John, my reply to Jerry sort of thoughts on the idea of two logics. Unfortunately, I replied first to Jerry and managed to lose your note to which I was going to reply. I have been online forever but have no idea what happened. Here is a bit that may explain what I am about. Reality is all. All

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

There's a lot beyond what you have said that is suggestive. But I will say just two things. If I was starting from scratch I would recognize a division between any contrived or explicit or mathematical or scientific language that is logically consistent and what I would call normal language or

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Stephen, John: > On Apr 14, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. This is a very clever phrase; I like it very much. Do you think that all of academic philosophy (not just the ones that post here)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Edwina and Stephen, ET what's the difference between a 'language game' and a 'grammatical sentence'? A sentence is just one move in a language game. For more about Wittgenstein's language games and their relationship to logic and computer programs, see the article "Language Games, Natural

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John - what's the difference between a 'language game' and a 'grammatical sentence'? Thanks Edwina On Mon 16/04/18 12:05 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: Jerry, Stephen, and Helmut, In his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

To speak of good as prior to logic is perhaps wrong. I claim logic is good. Good is only prior to logic in the sense that it represents what metaphysics used to see as the end of things. I see dualisms as eliminated by triadic thought. So, for example, metaphysics and logic coexist triadically.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Jerry, Stephen, and Helmut, In his later philosophy, Wittgenstein defined a natural language as the totality of all the language games that can be played with a given syntax and vocabulary. He did not state that point in those terms because he died several years before Chomsky made an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Logic is in my view good -- the good toward which things tend when logic is understood and followed. Words are a sort of utility by which we can perform everything from mundane to exalted feats. But to give them more than their due is an error I think even world-class philosophers like LW make

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

John F, Steven,List > On Apr 14, 2018, at 3:19 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: >> If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking its >> meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

´s "universal grammar"? Is it the same as logic?   Best, Helmut       Gesendet: Samstag, 14. April 2018 um 22:19 Uhr Von: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net> An: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

, Helmut       Gesendet: Samstag, 14. April 2018 um 22:19 Uhr Von: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net> An: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

I appreciate your reply and will parse it out a bit. I certainly do not defend words and language as final in any sense. My feeling words are sort of like pincers that vastly limit whatever the sign may be. Democracy, for example, is an impossible term minus all manner of elaboration yet it would

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by scientific parsing of the truth or

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. If logic it actually universal its universality is not served by locking its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by scientific parsing