I *strongly* agree with your analysis, Malgosia.
Best,
Gary
On 3/11/12, malgosia askanas wrote:
> Irving wrote, quoting Peirce MS L75:35-39:
>
>>"Deduction is only of value in tracing out the consequences of
>>hypotheses, which it regards as pure, or unfounded, hypotheses.
>>Deduction is divisi
Dear Ben,
There is no inconsistency as I see it, though I may not have stated the case
clearly enough. In the first I said Peirce is not referring to his categories
AS "predicates of predicates," not that he is not referring to his categories.
As index I am referring to the category itself, not
Irving wrote, quoting Peirce MS L75:35-39:
>"Deduction is only of value in tracing out the consequences of
>hypotheses, which it regards as pure, or unfounded, hypotheses.
>Deduction is divisible into sub-classes in various ways, of which the
>most important is into corollarial and theorematic. Co
Dear Steven,
In your previous post, you said,
>Although the dialogic makes these passages a little difficult to read, it
seems very clear to me that Peirce, in CP 4.549, is explicitly not referring to
his own categories as predicated predicates, or assertions on assertions.
>I think the q
Ben Udell asked:
Do you think that your "theoretical - computational" distinction and
likewise Pratt's "creator - consumer" distinction between kinds of
mathematics could be expressed in terms of Peirce's "theorematic -
corollarial" distinction?
Given that Peirce wrote at MS L75:35-39 that:
"
Jon, Gary, Ben and List,
There's another part of the Minute Logic which may be related to the connection
Jon is making between “objective logic” and “categories”. It is definitely
related to the argument in Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature, which Gary R.
suggested some time ago as worthy
