Jerry C., List: I am not sure what you are requesting; this is only a first step toward assessing the viability and potential usefulness of my alternative theoretical framework for Speculative Grammar.
Please note that I utilized five trichotomies, not three; and only two of them are ones that Peirce included in his 1903 taxonomy. Are you seeking "a logical argument that states a proposition" to support each listed example (and perhaps others) as being in that class? Are you only interested in differentiating the six classes that are Arguments, or all 21 proposed classes for Instances of Signs? I do not have John Sowa's book; perhaps you (or he) could post Figure 6.14 to help me understand what you have in mind. Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > List, Jon: > > I personally find it difficult to understand the significance of your > creation. > > It would become meaningful if you looked at the three trichotomies and > your derivatives as meaningful systems of argumentation. > That is, for each term, associate it (and as many other terms as needed) > with a logical argument that states a proposition. > > Thats all. > Just show me that it is pragmatically useful for separating out closely > related argumentative styles or types. > You might look at John Sowa’s Fig. 6.14, p. 397, as an example of what I > am referring to. > > 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 .
