John, Jon, list,
Thank you for a most interesting discussion.
Not being so keen on set theory, or the utterly simple assertions formal
logic has so far dealt with, I would like to draw your attention to
these assertion of mine:
If there exists a sheet of assertion, for example a blackboard or a
piece of paper, there has to have been some co-operative human beings to
make even the empty ones.
If there exists any assertion stated on it, there has to have been a
human individual to draw/write (etc) it.
As you can see, I have taken time into the timelessly considered issue
of empty sets.
Thus, empty sheets may exist, but they can only become real (have any
effect) if and only if some community (of whatever kind) not only
exists, but has become real.
How about these? Comments?
These present some outcomes from taking BOTH formulations of the
Pragmatic Maxim simultanously seriously. Which they usually are not.
People tend to take sides at the outset.
I have made wonders with modulations of Aristotelian syllogisms on this
basis. With the help of two new concepts, experiential time and
experiential meaning. Which have been exploited, but not funded.
Which kind of reminds me of someone else... Who on earth could it be...
With kind regards,
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 27.11.2017 19:00:
On 11/27/2017 10:30 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
JFS:
In 1911, Peirce clarified the issues by using two distinct terms:
'the universe' and 'a sheet of paper'. The sheet is no longer
identified with the universe, and there is no reason why one
couldn't or shouldn't shade a blank area of a sheet.
There is a difference between *being* a universe of discourse
and *representing* a universe of discourse...
I agree.
In the Lowell lectures, Peirce defined the Sheet of Assertion
as the representation of a universe that was constructed during
a discourse between Graphist and Grapheus.
But that is just one of many ways of using logic. In 1911,
he wrote about "whatever universe" and "the whole sheet":
Every word makes an assertion. Thus ——man means "There is a man"
in whatever universe the whole sheet refers to.
This is less restrictive than the definition in the Lowell lectures.
For example, it would allow a logician to use a sheet of paper to
write a proof by contradiction. In that case, there would be no
universe about which the statements on the paper could be true.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
