Jerry, list, JC quoted me:
GR: 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. Then commented: JC: "Hmmmm… “… no idea”??? I had continued in the snippet JC quoted above: GR: Can you offer support for your comments Jerry? Just a few examples would do for us to mull over what you might have in mind. I still have no idea what your point is, Jerry. I think when you make such really startling comments such as Gary Fuhrman is "avoiding the *basic logic* of Peirce" and that his interpretations are "remote from other interpreters" of Peirce that the onus is on *you* to: 1. provide examples where GF's interpretations 'avoid P's logic' or 2. 'are remote from other interpreters' take on the Lowell's we'tr considering, and then 3. show us how these intepretations 'avoid P's logic' and, as well, 4 provide examples of other interpretations of the same (or at least equivalent) material that 'are remote' from GF's. You have so far not even done 1. and 2. let alone 3. and 4. Until you do that you appear to me to be disparaging Gary's thinking with no solid support for your opinion. What you have written doesn't--at least yet--directly relate to Gary's interpretations. Btw, through my involvement with the SPIN project (and discussing some of this with NYC based Peirceans), I know Peirce scholars who would tend to disagree with your assessment of Gary's interpretations because I've discussed some of them with them. So, please, offer us some passages from Gary F's interpretations with which you disagree (which is what I meant by "examples" in my earlier post), interpretations which either do *not* employ Peirce's logic, or, are *not supported* by the community of Peirce scholarship. Then give us evidence of Gary's illogic and remoteness from other interpreters (as you see it). There can really be no valuable discussion of your claims until you do that, nor can Gary F be expected to respond to your alleged claims of his misinterpretation. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > 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 .
