Supp-supplement: Please do not take my second example seriously, because: If the olden Indians have had a different concept about ways of existence, they nevertheless have used the term "exists" in the exactly same way as we do. And, if Lao Tse has thought, that there is no pure cut existing, he anyway has used the symbol for a (pure, real) cut in the same way that we do, in his yin-yang-graph, just has added the (existing) impurity by inserting the two oppositely coloured blots. So- universal logic exists, the devil´s advocate was wrong.
Supplement: Regarding what you wrote about "the object of logic that is common to all its avatars": Calling the avatars "languages" or "culturally different kinds of logic", I think it is very important to identify such a common object of logic, and maybe the EGs can help with that.
I think it is important, because it refutes cultural relativism, and corrobates e.g. Chomsky´s assumption of a universal grammar. I think that a scientifically corrobated universal way of thinking is important, because it helps to argue against the contemporary uprising of the political right-wingers in Europe and worldwide and their concept of "ethnopluralism".
I am still wondering about two examples: Some time ago, in the west other than in India, there wasn´t a "zero" in mathematics. What did people call it when they were broke? Did they have to decide whether they posessed something, or had debts?
The other example is: In the west, either something exists, or it doesn´t. But in ancient Indian wisdom there are four ways: Something exists / something doesn´t exist / something both exists and doesn´t exist / and something neither exists nor doesn´t exist. Well, is it possible to proove, that this Indian logic can not be expressed with, maybe somehow modified, EGs? And, can it be prooved, that the concept of "cut" is not just a false western concept, while in e.g. China they have this "Yin-Yang" graph, that illustrates that there cannot be a real cut: The negation always contains a small part of corrobation (negation of the negation)? Ok, my thoughts are going wild, don´t answer all my questions. I was just taking the role of a devil´s advocate- for real I pledge for universality and universal logic, as I had said before.
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: Isnt 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:
"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 .
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
