Helmut, List,
GSB mentioned CSP and also Christine Ladd-Franklin
in the chapter notes, appendices, and references
of his Laws of Form. Just scanning very quickly,
I find refs on pages 90, 111, and 136 in my copy.
Almost in spite of its extremely elegant style, Laws of Form
did succeed in reviving a visual way of looking at logic that
Peirce had pioneered but that few other logicians took up with
any success in the intervening years. It drew out and clarified
a number of insights into the mathematical forms and methods of
logic that Peirce had the depth of vision to peer into but did
not always have the opportunity to develop as far as possible.
Sorry, short on time ...
Will try to get back ...
Regards,
Jon
On 10/31/2017 12:06 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, list,
thank you! "Not a without b" is much more simple,
I sometimes think too complicatedly.
Reading the LL 7, and having read the Wikipedia article about EGs, I ask myself:
Isn't that the same like in Spencer-Brown´s book "Laws of Form", except that
Spencer-Brown says "distinction" instead of "cut"? Is there something new by
"Laws of Form", e.g. the re-entry? And why did Spencer-Brown not mention
Peirce in his book? Not nice, is it?
Best,
Helmut
>
31. Oktober 2017 um 13:45 Uhr
"Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
Helmut, List,
Another way to read the form (a(b))
[in the existential interpretation]
is “not a without b”.
Peirce's approach in these lectures appeals to the line of thinking
that takes implications and the corresponding subject-predicate form
as basic, but that is not the only possible basis for 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 10/31/2017 3:34 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
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 symmetrically, therefore it must be "and then" for
a cut in a cut: "It is not so, that it rains, and then is not so, that a pear
is ripe". Still insufficient, because it must be estimated, that the negation
by the outer cut is valid for all outside, the whole universe (that it is not
so not only in London, but everywhere): "It cannot be, that it rains and then
is not so, that a pear is ripe". Now, by annihilating double negation,
"It cannot be that then not" becomes "if, then".
Best,
Helmut
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
