Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the doctrine of signs

On Mar 24, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > (The syllogism is universal!) Many forms of logic exist. Each has a unique philosophical basis or eidos or rationality or form of reasoning. The many forms of formal logic are useful in a pragmatic or utilitarian sense. Chemical logic i

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragma, Pragmata, Pragmatitude❢

Tori, list. On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:50 AM, VN Alexander wrote: > I also did a query on the etymology of "object." This is what I found. I > haven't put it in verse yet. But maybe I'll try someday. > > Let me explore the definition and etymology of the term “object” in an effort > to decide w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Objects, Objectives, Objectivity

Ben, List: I would encourage you to undertake a bit of web-searching on this topic. A huge body of biological and biochemical research exists on this topic, often under the general notion of "gene-for-gene" theory. This topic is of enormous economic importance for agriculture since it is widel

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the doctrine of signs

Vinicius, Jeff, Ben: (This post is a bit on the technical side. Do not have time today to make it simpler with longer explanations of the categories of exact relations mentioned in this text.) A simple interpretation of the Peircian distinction between the meaning associated with the groundin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 5, Semeiotics, or the doctrine of signs

Jeff, List: (Sung-note message to you below) Your comment is timely as we begin to enter the next session. The question of HOW MANY MEANINGS? may be assigned to a sign is critical from the perspective of trans-disciplinarity. Recall Vinicius's listing of the several meanings of the term "symb

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of Science

Ben, List On Apr 14, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > He mentions Schleiermacher a few times in passing. Would you be so kind as to post the references to Schleiermacher? He played a critical role in the trio of students (with Schelling and a poet whose name I forget,) who moved f

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of Science

Ben, List Thanks for citations. I will study them in some detail and from several perspectives. Very important to me. On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > Or did Schleiermacher start out in theology? Yes, the three theology students studied at Tubingen together in the early

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of Science

and contemporaries (including Spinoza, Kant, Friedrich Schlegel, > and Schelling), he was above all following in the philosophical footsteps of > one predecessor in particular: Herder. > > Best > > Søren > > > Fra: Jerry LR Chandler [mailt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapters 7 & 8

List: Frankly, I do not find CSP's words and works to be either as a structure or as a process. How about a "obscurist" or a "fuzzy-ist"? On the other hand, I find Michael's extraordinary clear view of philosophy: > Peirce is the one great philosopher who escapes my definition > of a philoso

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List: I concur with John Sowa’s post and his observations on the need for intellectual honesty. Cheers Jerry > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:38 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 3/21/2018 2:22 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: >> Peirce says here that this kind of analysis "relates to a real and important >>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List: > On Mar 23, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > The degenerate notions elude me. Me, too. This term has a crisp meaning in physics/chemistry terminology. Cheers Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Jon: > On Mar 24, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > As I said before, our projects are different because our aims are different. Can you explain your “aims”? Since it may not be obvious, this member of this board has the aim of understanding the writings of C S P. I wonder ho

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Degeneracy?

List: > On Mar 24, 2018, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > 1905 | Letters to Mario Calderoni | MS [R] L67:32-33 > …that Secundanity which consists in one man’s having a stature of 6 feet and > another man’s having a stature of 5 feet is a degenerate Secundanity, since > each would be ju

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination

List, Jeff > On Apr 5, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > At various points, he steps back from the examination of our common > experience and tries to provide a more exact logical analysis of the > relations involved, focusing on three kinds of relations: (1) A determines

Re: [PEIRCE-L] How we reason by Philip Johnson-Laird

John: Thanks for posting these references. The Table of Contents of the book is intriguing! A copy has been ordered. :-) I am particular anxious to compare his vision of logic to that of CSP, Whitehead, Tarski, Beziau, and others. Cheers Jerry > On Apr 8, 2018, at 10:05 AM, John F Sowa wr

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 achieved >> fallibly by

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) uses all words in this

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

John: > On Apr 16, 2018, at 4:16 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > JLRC >> [Music notation] is pragmatically successful despite the linguistic >> ambiguity of the two temporal reference systems in the notation. > > The only vagueness in music notation (when written carefully) is > in the words that re

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

John, List: > On Apr 17, 2018, at 5:04 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 4/17/2018 4:41 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> I was referring to music, not merely a collection of notes. > > I certainly agree that the same notes played by Jascha Heifetz > and the kid next door wo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Reality and Theism (was Skepticism regarding)

Matt: > On May 17, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: > > in "not 'the physico-psychical universe' itself". Isn't the relation of God > the Creator to His Creation, viz., the physico-psychical universe, for all we > know, the same as the relation of force to acceleration? Physical mathemati

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

List, John Thanks for these IMPORTANT historical references! > On May 19, 2018, at 10:44 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > That led me to Venn's articles from 1880, which may have had a > significant influence on Peirce's thinking about graph logics. > They're in the 1880 proceedings of the Cambridge

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

of the breadth and depth of information. > On May 22, 2018, at 3:27 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 5/22/2018 1:22 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> Of particular interest is Venn’s views on the role of “=“ sign. Copula? Or >> predicate? >> Or, in view of symbolization

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

profoundly deep logical distinction, amazingly, the sciences of physics and chemistry are Siamese twins, symbolically conjoined by the facts of life and the realism of matter. > On May 24, 2018, at 8:01 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 5/23/2018 2:14 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

List, John: > On May 24, 2018, at 8:01 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > >> JLRC Wrote: >> he foresaw the grammatical constraints in his (1860’s) >> specification of the breadth and depth of information. > JFS responded: > Without seeing a quotation, I don't know exactly what you're > referring to. Bu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

John, List: > On Jun 5, 2018, at 5:05 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Thanks. But I thought of another answer to the question about > thesis/antithesis/synthesis: > > The synthesis is always metaphysical -- transcendental, as Kant > called it, or a kind of Thirdness, as Peirce would say. > > B I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object

JAS, List: Thank for clarifying the change of views of CSP wrt meaning of representamen and sign. >From my scientific perspective, this substitution of the word sign for the >word represent amen appears to be a major change in his world view toward the >meaning of scientific symbol systems an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object

eferred term. > > I see no reason whatsoever to infer that Peirce was "abandoning realism and > approaching sophism." On the contrary, his realism became more and more > "extreme" (his characterization) over time. > > Regards, > > Jon S. >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object

Gary F > On Jun 29, 2018, at 6:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > “Involvement” on the other hand is not a process but a relation we discover > by analysis. Really? Is this because of the origins of the two terms? Cheers Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object

about the real objects of those two general terms. > > Can you give an example of a process of involvement? > > Gary f. > > From: Jerry LR Chandler > Sent: 29-Jun-18 09:45 > > Gary F >> On Jun 29, 2018, at 6:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object

> On Jun 29, 2018, at 6:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > The problem is, how does the order of determination relate to the analysis > that produces the trichotomies? Is determination a process that takes time, > and does the time it takes have a single direction like experienced > (phenome

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

List: > On Jul 4, 2018, at 12:27 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > [[ If we take any proposition, say > > A sinner kills a saint > > and if we erase portions of it, so as to leave it a blank form of > proposition, the blanks being such that if every one of them is filled with a > proper nam

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

List: > On Jul 5, 2018, at 7:38 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > In your other post, you wrote, “A Rheme not only must have at least one blank > empty, but also at least one blank filled; it must have either breadth or > depth, just not both.” I don’t know where you get this idea … A rheme with

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

n to the notion of meaning / rules of interpretation that are intrinsic to human communication. > and logic/semeiotic is aims for the deeper and more universal structural > principles that he called “speculative grammar.” > The adjective “speculative” is appended to the word “grammar”. Ch

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

List: It may be of interest to some to look at the meaning of speculative grammar from two other views, Commens quote and the Modistae. IN particular, the concept of the “mirror” is critical to the art of scientific representations / representamens. > On Jul 5, 2018, at 9:30 AM, g...@gnusyst

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

List, Stephen > On Jul 5, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote: > > One good reason for semiotics is its transcending of language. Are you placing the cart before the horse? Historically, the opposite appears to be the case. The very constrained meaning of any sign motivates the genesis

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

JAS, List > On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > According as the number of blanks in a rheme is 0, 1, 2, 3, etc., it may be > termed a medad (from {méden}, nothing), monad, dyad, triad, etc., rheme. (CP > 2.272, EP 2:299; 1903) > > The first sentence requires at least one p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs (lexical fields)

ww.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > JAS, List >> On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > <mailto:j

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs Role of Inquiry?

> On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:18 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Jerry, > > It seems you were only able to find one quote from Peirce on the subject; > here are a few more. > Gary: You are correct. I am not a CSP scholar so no further search was made. Indeed, as my work on the logic of life progr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

List, Gary: > On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:18 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > [ I, therefore, take a position quite similar to that of the English > logicians, beginning with Scotus himself, in regarding this introductory part > of logic as nothing but an analysis of what kinds of signs are absolutel

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

List: > On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:18 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > [[ Nothing can be more preposterous than to base that grammatica speculativa > which forms the first part of logic upon the usages of language. ] Harvard > Lecture 6 (Turrisi p. 235)] A very strange abuse of the history of the te

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs

List, Gary > On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:18 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > [[ I do not, for my part, regard the usages of language as forming a > satisfactory basis for logical doctrine. Logic, for me, is the study of the > essential conditions to which signs must conform in order to function as >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs and Propositions (was Peirce's late classification of signs) and adjunctions.

List, John: These questions arose from JAS’s earlier posts; my earlier response was to Jon's assertions about the nature of medads (nothings). As to your current post, I hardly endorse your style of : > When I interpret Peirce's writings on any topic in science, > math, or logic, I look at his s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs and Propositions (was Peirce's late classification of signs) and adjunctions.

List, John: The fresh link works fine. Thank You! > On Jul 11, 2018, at 3:05 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > >> Are you altering the meaning of the texts of CSP? >> Can you relate your existential graphs to 3.420-3.421? > > I'm interpreting what he wrote about EGs in terms of his > algebraic nota

Re: [PEIRCE-L] No need to distinguish Alpha and Beta graphs

List, John: > On Jul 13, 2018, at 3:31 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > I don't believe that there is any reason to distinguish Peirce's > Alpha graphs (propositional logic) from his Beta graphs (FOL). The objective of this post is to clarify a single technical point. In your belief system, is the

Sowa belief system structures was Re: [PEIRCE-L] No need to distinguish Alpha and Beta graphs,

extensions of informed numbers and lexical fields. I changed the name of the thread to bookmark the topic. Cheers Jerry > On Jul 13, 2018, at 5:28 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 7/13/2018 5:30 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> In your belief system, is the conceptualization of CSP

Re: Sowa belief system structures was Re: [PEIRCE-L] No need to distinguish Alpha and Beta graphs,

. Applications of irregular mathematics and synductive logic to the emergence of life, to reproduction of an individual organism, to genomic medicine and to the origins of consciousness are in progress. Jerry LR Chandler McLean, VA Revised June 20, 2009 > On Jul 13, 2018, at 6:19

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 7

List: This citation is not complete nonsense. “Precision” is a word related to measurement. The issue at a deeper level was resolved by Tarski in the 1930s. Every logical language requires a meta-language. CSP was challenged by the relative lexical fields of math, physics, and chemistry. IMHO Je

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Logical Depth and Signification

List: > On Jul 26, 2018, at 4:21 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > For normative science in general being the science of the laws of conformity > of things to ends, esthetics considers those things whose ends are to embody > qualities of feeling, ethics those things whose ends lie in action,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Logical Depth and Signification

Auke Please explain the relationship between your suggestion and my comment. Thanks Jerry Sent from my iPad > On Jul 27, 2018, at 3:31 AM, Auke van Breemen wrote: > > Jerry, > > Don’t confuse mathematical logic with normative logic. > > Best, > > Auke van

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Logical Depth and Signification

markable characterization of > logic" > > Best, > > Gary > > > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > 718 482-5690 > > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:55

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Logical Depth and Signification

List, John, Auke, Gary R., A remarkably intersting array of remarks related to the remarkable remark of CSP. :-) The following notes may be relevant to at least some readers of this note. 1. To me, the critical word in CSP’s phrase was “represent”. In my view, the notion of representation mu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Logical Depth and Signification

List: > On Jul 28, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > 4. The notion that “normative” is somehow related to morals/ethics is > problematic. I withdraw this assertion. JLRC - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recommendation: In email notes, avoid the word 'you'

List: In my opinion, John’s example are clear and meaningful. In my opinion, any informed professional could be insulted by the lame excuses contained in the comment below. John’s remarks have meaning for all contributors, including myself. The remarks should be taken seriously even by write

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recommendation: In email notes, avoid the word 'you'

List, Helmut: > On Aug 3, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > List, > I think this topic is semiotically very relevant, and shows the connection > between semiotics and systems theory, with us as systems. I am puzzled by this association. What is the nature of the connection? > I think

[PEIRCE-L] Open Questions on the Meaning of CP 5.376?

List, Gene, Gary R. Gary F, Stephen: > Gene quoted Peirce: > "But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not > stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a real and > living doubt, and without this all discussion [is?] idle" (CP 5.376). > Gary >F

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possibility and actuality: What does a variable refer to?

John, Kirsti, List (This is a technical post wrt to the role of possibility and actuality in the exact abductive logic of organic mathematics.) I would just add an extremely important fact about the relationship between possibility and actuality in the chemical sciences. In the modern era, the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object

List, Jeff: > On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > Following the suggestion that John Sowa has made, I think that an appeal to > Peirce's work in formal logic--especially the later work on the existential > graphs--might provide us with useful tools for making a more

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object

Francesco, List: Welcome to the List, Francesco! Your posts are refreshingly original. Is it possible that the following assertion is a consequence of modern notions of set theory and symbolic logic rather than the state of logical thought in the latter part of the 19 th Century? > the prope

Semiotics and Identity, CP 6.339 Was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified among the sciences?)

List, Jon, Francesco: > On Sep 11, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > He also wrote later that the three different forms of thought--corresponding > to Icons, Indices, and Symbols--are best explained by positing three > different "modes of metaphysical being." > > CSP: You will

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

List: The recent post by Jerry Rhee and Edwina deserve deep perusal. In spirit , these posts parallel my own feelings. Semantics alone is merely philosophy abused. Mathematics alone is not even logic. In my view, CSP focused on language as a path of syntaxies to arguments that illuminated the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being

John: > On Sep 15, 2018, at 5:28 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > To avoid the controversy, I'll delete the phrase "partial and narrow" > and replace it with a line that says normative logic is the "theory > of self-controlled or deliberate thought". > Hmmm… Does this really help? How does a thought

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

John: The origin of the six “bullets” listed below is unclear. Are these your personal evaluations of CSP texts? I ask because it appears to me that # 2 is simply false. The chemical alphabet is finite. Cheers Jerry > > On Thu 13/09/18 10:03 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

List: > On Sep 13, 2018, at 10:33 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > But > everything that is imaginable can be described by some theory > of pure mathematics. How can one describe a “feeling” in pure mathematical terms? I will answer my own question. Simply quote W.O Quine: “To be is to be a variab

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being

ote: > > Dear Jerry, list, > > What does Peirce mean by > “entertain a metaphysical theory that they are all hypostatically the same > ego”? > > Does he mean me and you? Jon and Gary? Edwina and kirsti? John and Jeff? > > Thanks, > Jerry > > &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure and applied mathematics

John, List: > On Sep 19, 2018, at 9:33 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > >> >> How can one describe a large bio-molecule, such as Nicotinamide >> Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD) in pure mathematical terms?" > > For any theory of applied math, there is a simple procedure for > finding a corresponding theory

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure and applied mathematics

Kirsti, List: John Sowa almost always gives very good answers in his posts here when viewed from the traditional views of the philosophy of Vienna Circle. But, a very good answer is not necessarily a mathematically, or logically or scientific COMPELLING answer for the science, logic, or mathema

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure and applied mathematics

category theory in the sense of Saunders MacLane text. This usage is much wider that predicate logic but excludes the various forms of para-consistent logics. Cheers Jerry > On Sep 19, 2018, at 6:28 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 9/19/2018 4:28 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure and applied mathematics

e key points. > On Sep 21, 2018, at 9:38 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 9/20/2018 5:33 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> I ask that you clearly state the meaning of your notion of “pure >> mathematics”. I have taken it to mean the usual undergraduate >> level of mathematic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

List: I wish to clarify my intended meaning. > On Sep 14, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > Semantics alone is merely philosophy abused. > I simply mean that mother nature (including humanity) is a union of units, everything is part of the whole, tha

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure and applied mathematics

List, John: The methodology you propose for applied mathematics (that is, for pragmatic realism) is commented upon below. > On Sep 19, 2018, at 6:28 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 9/19/2018 4:28 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> A chemical atomic number, as a unique form of matt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure and applied mathematics

List, John: > On Sep 27, 2018, at 6:01 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 9/27/2018 6:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> it is not possible to fully respond to your beliefs about the >> relationships between Peircian realism, modern mathematics and >> science. Our disag

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure and applied mathematics

List, John: > On Sep 27, 2018, at 9:25 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Pure mathematics has infinitely many theories. > If you only want a restricted version, it has that also. Fine. If you wish to hypothesize that pure mathematics can generate large categories of theories, I will grant you that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar

List, Jon: I personally find it difficult to understand the significance of your creation. It would become meaningful if you looked at the three trichotomies and your derivatives as meaningful systems of argumentation. That is, for each term, associate it (and as many other terms as needed) wi

Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

<http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List, Jon: > > I personally find it difficult

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

gt; <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:23 PM Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List, JonAS: > > Shortly after you posted

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

bductive reasoning. Cheers Jerry > On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > List, JAS, > > First, thank you Jon for the reference to J K Sheriff’s work. > > His table of relations among the triadic triples is rather cute. Cute, but > hardly

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

autumn. John, would you like to comment on your reasoning? Do you have any other examples where data was actually used in the network described? Cheers Jerry > On Nov 18, 2018, at 9:08 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > List, > > This post continues the inquiry i

Re: [PEIRCE-L] the sexuality of methodeutic

Jon: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: (From EP 2:203-204) > > In addition however to denoting objects, every sign sufficiently complete > signifies characters, or qualities But what is the meaning of this phrase? In particular, when can we distinguish between a sign t

Re: Open Question was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systematic Framework for Speculative Grammar.

universal basis for semiosis, then I would speculate > that an unbounded number of pragmatic examples of triadic triples should > exist and be as common as the falling leaves in the autumn. > > John, would you like to comment on your reasoning? > Do you have any other examples whe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

> On Jan 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > JFS: Can anyone give an example of continuous semiosis in language or > reasoning? > > ... is impossible to fulfill. Any concrete example that anyone could give > would instead consist of Instances as discrete Tokens. As for you

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

List, This post amends the typos in last post and extended the questions about the role of feelings in continuous semiosis. > On Jan 12, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > >> On Jan 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

List, Jon: > On Jan 19, 2019, at 8:18 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > This initially suggests a Seme as a point, a Pheme as a line defined by two > points, and a Delome as a plane defined by three points that also define > three lines. It is of interest recall the CSP definitions of the t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

rarily mark on the > corresponding line. As a Sign (Type), each of the Phemes is analogous to a > continuous plane defined by the two lines for the Semes that it involves, and > any isolated Instance (Token) of each is analogous to the discrete point > where those lines intersect. As

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

Jon, List: > On Jan 23, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > "Continuation" is a noun, while "continuous" is an adjective, so I do not see > how one could be substituted directly for the other; and "continuation" > certainly has a different meaning from "continuum." > Huh? Are y

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semiosis

John, List: > On Jan 23, 2019, at 2:42 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Basic principle: I hope that we can make Peirce's ideas more widely > known and used in the 21st c. Unusual words that Peirce rarely used > himself are not likely to attract new readers. I believe that it's > not useful to revi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, Tokens, Instances

List, Jon > On Jan 25, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > How should we characterize these various ways of uttering the same > Proposition? For example ... > We are going to the restaurant. > We are going to the restaurant? > We are going to the restaurant! These three sentence h

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

List, John: > On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:16 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > That means that the word 'seme' is obsolete. One of the basic attributes of intellectual freedom is the right to choose the words one uses. I am quite certain that John did not intend to restrict discussion with this emotiona

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

> On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose > wrote: > > This makes it impossible any more to go with much but the now. The challenge is to find the paths between one’s understanding of history and current historical events. It is a sorting and match process between oneself and the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > 1] By all means - one can choose the words one uses. But if very few > understand them - then, how functional is your communication? In response to your question, one uses the word in a context appropriate. Thats how new words entry in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic

List, Edwinia: > On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > JC: In response to your question, one uses the word in a context appropriate. > Thats how new words entry into the evolution of language. > > EDWINA: > To declare that 'one uses the word in a context appropriate' doesn't

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God

Stephen: The nature of transcendence is an intriguing challenge in most disciplines because of the meaning of its L. root. Can you clarify how transcendence relates to the scope and scale of predicates? Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPad > On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Semiotic Argument for the Reality of God

view account for emergence? Cheers Jerry > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:58 AM Jerry LR Chandler > mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Stephen: > > The nature of transcendence is an intriguing challenge in most disciplines > because of the meaning of its

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

John, List: Although your post deserves a longer comment, my time is limited and I will constrain myself to two or three issues. > On Feb 7, 2019, at 10:29 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Everything Peirce wrote about semeiotic, from first to last, was > based on his math and logic. Since math and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

List, John: Recent posts to this list serve have highlighted certain aspects of grammar with respect to logic. Here, I would make a simple comment in relation to grammar and logics. The reader is referred to G. Sher, Epistemic Frictions (Oxford, 2016) for background discussion. > On Feb 7, 20

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > How can subjects be disjoint from predicates if they can denote properties? > How can predicates by themselves be "true of things" when only a complete > proposition is capable of being true or false? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] EGs and phaneroscopy

List, Jeff: > On Feb 9, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > For my part, I take the logical arguments for the categories to be based on > the requirements for having valid arguments as well as meaningful > propositions and terms. The question that he articulates in "On the Lo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

one predicate. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

Jon, List: > On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Which of my "multitudes of assertions about the nature of [my] > interpretations of CSP’s assertions" do I specifically need to clarify > further by constructing some examples? Obviously "all of them" would not be > a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Examples of continuity in semiosis

Jon, List: > On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > JLRC: In this context, CSP asserted that his was a ‘logic of proper names’ > (legisigns). If you are looking for the exact text from CSP, try searching under "algebra of Proper Names”. > > Where did he ever make su

Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy

Gary, List: > On Feb 19, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > At the moment I cannot think of how phenomenology might address that question > which seems to me at the moment to be a strictly semeiotic one. But it is a > most interesting question which I hope we can pursue further in disc

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >