Helmut - a few comments:
1] I think the semiosic process begins with 1ns, a sensation...and
moves into awareness [2ns]..
2] With regard to your statement 'There is no unicorn that is not
pink' - I think that this is what is known as an 'E' or negative
form. Essentially you are saying: 'No unicorn is X. And the 'X'
happens to be a description which is, 'not pink'. This is not a
negative, merely a term that includes of ALL colours that are 'not
pink'. It's a law, a major premiss.. Same as the universal positive
of 'Every unicorn is pink'. [And this is NOT an illation but an
assertion, a major premiss.
3] Laws are not always developed from external actual experience;
they can develop within the mind as purely mental assertions [think
of myths, of religions].
4] I would also say that Unicorns DO 'exist'. They are mental
constructs and we see their images in paintings and artwork all over
the world. I don't think we can confine 'existence' to
physical/biological forms; I think we have to include conceptual
forms as well. After all don't symbols 'exist'?
Edwina
On Mon 01/02/21 11:03 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All, I don´t see, that a transparent
universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´ example is valid in a
transparent universe too: From "There is no unicorn that is not pink"
, which is true, does not follow "Every unicorn is pink", which is not
true, even or especially not in a transparent universe, in which
everybody knows that unicorns don´t exist. I would like to know if
you all ("ye", why has this word been abandoned?) think the following
makes sense: I rather think it has to do with categories: A natural
semiosis goes 2-1-3, a representative semiosis too, as it is a
natural semiosis too. This is generation. But inside a
representational semiosis the reflected is not generated, but
degenerated, or remains on the same level. Meaning, you cannot
conclude a law (3ns) from a situation (2ns). "There is no unicorn
that is not pink" is a description, a situation, a status, a 2ns.
"Every unicorn is pink" is an illation, consequence, law, 3ns. This
cannot be inferred from the said 2ns. Only with another 3ns-law it
might. This second premiss should have to be "Unicorns exist". If
they would, the step from the double negation towards the illation
would be valid. But why is the (fictional) latter premiss "Unicorns
exist" not a 2ns, a status-report, but a 3ns, a law? I guess, the
existence-operator does it. Either it is so, that certain operators
that adress universality, such as "Every" or "Exist", make a
proposition a law (3ns), while others, such as the NOT- operator,
don´t, are merely status-reports, 2ns, although they are universal
as well. The NOT-operator cannot make a law, because a law is only
based on reality, existence, not on denial or neglection. The
Exist-operator, and the Every-operator, and also the IF-THEN-
operator make a law. A law is a produce of habit-formation, which has
been a process in reality, so something positive. Negatives, things
that are not there, or are missed, donot form habits, so not laws.
Something like that it must be I think, what do you think? Best,
Helmut 01. Februar 2021 um 13:07 Uhr
"Auke van Breemen"
wrote:
John,
This part of the article Edwina send is relevant:
It follows that logic, in Peirce’s illative, ecstatic sense, is
better understood as an
inductive rather than a deductive science, for the ampliative work
of inductive inference
better exemplifies, in a richer, fuller sense, the illative,
ecstatic essence of inference per
se. While deduction still stands as essential and irreplaceable
aspect of logic, it remains a
purely formal and hence more abstract (and more ‘degenerate’)
expression of the illative
essence of inference (and argumentation) in its fullest sense.
---
You keep assuming that Jon is talking about logic as a calculus in a
transparant logical universe. But in this respect he never denied
negation its role. As far as I get it, Jon's attempt can be seen as a
diagrammatical calculus in the way of its development, but not for
logic in the sense you take it, but as a dia-logical calculus. And in
dialogues we ought to be interested in the reasons for the negation.
Proof must be constructive.
The shaded ovals are interesting, especially in combination with the
sheets and the lines of identity running on (self conversation) and
through different sets of them (comminication or dialogue).
It is as if you at the end of your carreer are diving in the method
of tenacity.
Best,
Auke Op 1 februari 2021 om 5:10 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
Edwina,
Thanks for the URL of that article. I changed the subject line to
the title of
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=ossaarchive
[1]
The full title is "Inference as growth: Peirce�s ecstatic logic of
illation", and I want to emphasize that this article is talking about
illation as a process, not as a particular sign for if-then,
The Latin verb 'infero' is irregular. Its present participle
'inferens' is the source of the English word 'inference'. Its past
participle 'illatus' is the source of the words 'illation' and
'illative'.
When Peirce said that 'ergo' (therefore) is a sign of illation that
signals the end of a process. Modern logicians use the term 'rule of
inference' for what Peirce called 'permission'. The present
participle suggests one step of a continuing process.
The article makes some good points, but it should not be considered
as an argument for the scroll as a logical primitive. Peirce's
permissions (in every version of EGs from 1897 to the end) depend
only insertions and deletions in negative or positive areas.
A scroll is just one particular arrangement. As Peirce wrote in
R670, a scroll is equivalent to a nest of two negations. In L231 and
later, he raised his pen when he drew two ovals in order to avoid any
suggestion that the scroll shape had any significance.
There is, of course, more to say.
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 no subject, and with the sole line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the
sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [3] . ► PEIRCE-L is
owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed
by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1]
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=ossaarchive
[2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[3] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
