Gary R, List: > On Nov 26, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have no idea where this peculiar comment (GF appearing "to avoid the basic > logic of CSP" and his interpretations appearing "to be remote from other > interpreters of CSP writings) might mean, nor where it is coming from.
Hmmmm… “… no idea”??? Puzzling comment to me. I wrote, in response, not to CSP’s texts, but rather to Gary’s interpretations in subsequence correspondence to the questions raised by readers of this list. "While I deeply appreciate your efforts to stimulate discussions here, I am equally deeply concerned that your interpretations are flawed because of the absence of associations to the structure of logical propositions.” . This sentence is about as straight-forward as I can express myself in this extremely abstract domain. And, I provided several references to CSP and Robert’s book on Existential Graphs that cohere with my interpretation of the text. The essential questions that CSP is attempting to address, in my opinion, (see 4.438,Roberts, p. 114-115.) 1. What are the relationships between grammar and propositions using proper names? 2. What are the relationships between propositions and the logic of subject - copula - predicate with proper names? 3. What are the relationships between mathematical pairings (Kempe’s “spots”) and logical propositions with proper names? I believe that these questions are addressed in Roberts book in the pages cited. At this this point, I am tempted to cite Sherlock Homes, on seeking explanations. "When all else fails... Is your source of drastic disconnection from CSP’s texts your views on the particular logics of Proper Names? Perhaps, it would be helpful for your understanding to provide a crisp re-cap of your logical positions on the role of Proper Names in semiotics and syntax and then relate your propositions to Existential Graphs and then relate it to the opinions of Roberts (especially on the role of Kempe’s logic of “spots” in relation to pairings of objects.) [Symbolically, does A —> B —> C]. If A, B and C are the antecedents, are the consequences coherent or nonsense? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
