Jon, Yes, I agree, even though I haven't read through it. It was my plan to be getting to Vol. 3, which includes the LOR, next. Then after starting Vol. 3, I decided reading precursors like Boole and De Morgan would be a good idea. Anyway, I've been sidetracked for the moment with conversations on Peirce-L. With respect to Jeff's ideas, I'd like to offer as much as I can to thought for now, before I get back to my reading.
-- Franklin ---------------------------- On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Re: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17582 > Re: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17626 > > Franklin, Jeff, all ... > > In order to understand what Peirce is saying one has to understand > what he is talking about. When it comes to the logic of relatives > and the mathematics of relations, my personal recommendation for > the best place to start would be the 1870 Logic of Relatives. > There Peirce is writing for people who already inhabit the > space he is talking about and his task reduces to that of > giving them better maps and microscopes and telescopes > for exploring and describing the territory in view. > That is by no means an insignificant assignment but > it's still more tractable than starting from zip. > > My study of the 1870 LOR, as far as I've got for now, is here: > > http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce's_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives > > Regards, > > Jon
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
