List, Gary: > On Jul 5, 2018, at 4:18 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > [ I, therefore, take a position quite similar to that of the English > logicians, beginning with Scotus himself, in regarding this introductory part > of logic as nothing but an analysis of what kinds of signs are absolutely > essential to the embodiment of thought. I call it, after Scotus, Speculative > Grammar. I fully agree, however, with a portion of the English school … in > thinking that this Speculative Grammar ought not to confine its studies to > those conventional signs of which language is composed, but that it will do > well to widen its field of view so as to take into consideration also kinds > of signs which, not being conventional, are not of the nature of language. ] > EP2:257]
In this context, and in light of recent progress in separating and defining the logic of physic and chemistry, I read these sentences with fresh eyes. As a result of subsequent century (post-CSP) inquiry, several lexical fields for symbol systems have emerged. These lexical fields are often referred to in some sense of hierarchy theory. Yet, Tarski has pointed out the necessity of ordering of meanings in different lexical fields. Can anyone suggest a reason why Tarski’s meta-languages in relative lexical fields does not logically resolve the numerical issue of EP2.257? Or, is an even “wider” compositional base needed for logic, such as the Port Royal propositions? 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 .
