John, List: JFS: I showed that your interpretation of Peirce was inconsistent with what he wrote.
You showed that my interpretation of Peirce is inconsistent with your interpretation of what he wrote. JFS: Determine exactly where you made your mistakes and correct them. My approach to the List is such that I am not afraid to make and correct mistakes, and I tend to learn a lot when I do so; as the saying goes, "I write to find out what I think." Disagreement forces me to sharpen that thinking, as it has done repeatedly in this case. I admit that I had some initial misconceptions about Existential Graphs, which led me to propose adjustments that were more radical than I realized at the time. Once I gained a better understanding, I focused on representing Propositions, rather than the process of reasoning; and then I decided accordingly to call the resulting diagrams Propositional Graphs, rather than Modified Existential Graphs. Even so, I still might ultimately adopt your recommendation to stick with EGs and use a multi-Peg Spot for the Continuous Predicate, consistent with Peirce's own brief experiments in his Logic Notebook. JFS: If by chance you find any point where I or the CP editors made a mistake, I would be happy to correct my error, and you would have an article that is worth publishing in Semiotica, As a relatively trivial case, you attributed the one and only passage where Peirce used the term "quasi-predicate" to the Minute Logic of 1902, when in fact it was in the Syllabus of 1903--which the CP editors incorrectly dated "c. 1902" in the footnote for 2.309, the source reference that encompasses 2.320. More substantively, at first you argued strenuously against employing the word "Seme" at all, and later insisted repeatedly that it is strictly equivalent to "predicate" or "quasi-predicate," citing the CP editors for suggesting in a footnote to 4.538 that "Seme" and "Rheme" are synonymous--which is at least misleading, and arguably false; "vase" is a Seme, while "_____ is a vase" is a Rheme. You went on to assert that "Seme" cannot possibly apply to a subject, even though Peirce explicitly stated otherwise in an alternate draft of the very same paragraph. CSP: The first member of the triplet, the 'Seme,' embraces the logical Term, the Subject or Object of a sentence, everything of any kind, be it a man or a scribed character, such as h or Pb, which will serve, or is supposed to serve, for some purpose, as a substitute for its Object. It is a Sign which pretends, at least, to intend to be virtually its Object. (R 295:11-12[28-29]; 1906) This definition is extremely broad, and there is no viable way to parse it as somehow encompassing only predicates and thus excluding subjects, especially since "the Subject or Object of a sentence" is *right there in the text*. Moreover, it is clearly consistent with Peirce's late 1908 analysis of a Proposition--the topic of our sharpest interpretive disagreement--in which *every *constituent Sign that serves "as a substitute for its Object" is a Subject, while the one Continuous Predicate is embodied primarily in the Syntax; sometimes exclusively, as with "Cain killed Abel." Again, I believe that there is further fruit to be harvested from the notion that "the proper way in logic is to take as the subject whatever there is of which sufficient knowledge cannot be conveyed in the proposition itself, but collateral experience on the part of its interpreter is requisite" (NEM 3:885; 1908). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:40 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 2/26/2019 12:45 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Why should anyone /presuppose /that your analysis is somehow > > /intrinsically /more accurate than mine? > > They shouldn't presuppose anything. They can just look at the proof. > I showed that your interpretation of Peirce was inconsistent with > what he wrote. > > > disagree with my analysis does not entail that it lacks such depth. > > Disagreement doesn't entail anything. Proof does. > > If you don't want to feel insulted, you should do your homework. > Study my previous notes. Determine exactly where you made your > mistakes and correct them. > > If by chance you find any point where I or the CP editors made > a mistake, I would be happy to correct my error, and you would > have an article that is worth publishing in Semiotica, > > If not, please apologize. > > 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 .
