List, John: > On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:16 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > That means that the word 'seme' is obsolete.
One of the basic attributes of intellectual freedom is the right to choose the words one uses. I am quite certain that John did not intend to restrict discussion with this emotional appeal.. SO HOW IS ONE TO INTERPRET THIS HIGHLY UNUSAL LINGUISTIC CLAIM? I find that the notion that > word 'seme' is obsolete to be without any rational foundation in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and linguistics. However, this usage is perfectly acceptable in philosophical chatter, but, even in philosophical discourse, it could be viewed as a bit narcissistic. Quite to the contrary, after reading the descriptions, I concluded that the choice of the word “seme“ brings a coherence to several aspects of CSP terminology. In other words, it clarifies his abandonment of the 1860-1880 logical framework in the time frame of 1890 -1900 and replaces it with a foundational set of identity terms that are useful for constructing relationships among objects that are Proper Nouns. My conjecture is that the usage of the mathematical notion of model theory as predicate logic is simply a metaphoric dodge to get rid of the challenges of the logics of Proper Nouns. Several recent posts strongly suggest the desire to delete Proper Nouns from the logical interpretations of CSP’s writings. I have attempted to understand CSP’s global claim, “In my universal algebra of logic, these is no common noun” In this context, it is reasonable to interpret the word “seme” as a specific replacement for the word “sign" as an individual interpretation of exterior signs. Further, in this context, the word “seme” can represent specific technical terms that are indices that contribute to the representative “symbol” for the external qualisigns of the sinsigns that are composed into graphs as symbols. In my view, the foundations of logic are perplex because of the absolute mathematical necessity to clearly and distinctly separate proper nouns from common nouns. Of course, if one starts from the premise that mathematical predicate logic fully, completely and totally resolves al issues concerning the foundations of logic, one does not need to bother with Proper Nouns. Hence, the finding of the CSP quote: “In my universal algebra of logic, these is no common noun” affirmed many other conjectures about the organization of the formative form of the triple triad as a generative source of arguments and identity. See the books and papers of Gila Sher for recent discussions of the perplex foundations of logic from a modern mathematical perspective. 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 .
