Helmut, list
To say that 'A exists' - can be translated, I think, into a
syllogistic sentence of, for example: All men are biological
organisms. [with 'biological organism' understood as 'existing'.
So, that's a universal, ie, a law.
But, to declare that 'No men are biological organisms' [which is the
form of 'A doesn't exist'... is also a valid universal. It's unsound
because it's false, but it's still valid logically.
----------------------------------
If you instead switched to the particular where you say, for 'A
exists' then this is the format for the sentence of 'Henry is a
biological organism'... well, I don't think this is a law. It only
refers to Henry. So, it's in 2ns. Same with 'A doesn't exist'..which
could translate to 'Henry is not a biological organism'....and this
too is particular and in 2ns.
-------------------------------------
The conceptual image of a unicorn does exist - we see it in so many
paintings. But biologically, no such animal exists.
----------------------------
I consider that the DO does not exist apart from the semiosic
process. That is, when the Object - the external Object which exists
outside of our interaction with it - when this external Object is
'grabbed' by the semiosic process, it becomes, then, the Dynamic
Object. Its data as received [by my semiosic process] is the
Immediate Object. My capacity for receiving the input data may be
limited, so my Immediate Object data is quite specific to my
capabilities to understand it.
Edwina
On Tue 02/02/21 11:18 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, List, with "universally valid law " I meant the
universe as domain, especially for the example, that "A exists" has
the property of a law, 3ns, but "A doesn´t exist" does not have this
property, is merely 2ns. About the object you are right, and I was
wrong. The dynamic object preexists, but not the immediate. The
interaction starts with 1, and the determination with the DO (2?).
About the unicorn I think, that "Unicorn" (put in quotation marks)
exists, but not a unicorn. Best, Helmut 01. Februar 2021 um
20:16 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut, list
1] I'm not sure what a 'universally valid law' means. After all,
'laws' in themselves, are evolved habits, both in the natural world
and in the conceptual world. Therefore, a conceptual belief, whether
operative in a sect, religion, or myth, is as much a 'law' or
'habit-of-belief/behaviour' as in the natural realm. Such laws are
not universal but are valid within a domain - only the most basic
physical laws are universal and even then, restrictions apply. Or do
you mean logical principles, such as cause and effect?
2] I don't think that the 'particular' is an 'illusion or collusion'
- but these two terms need to be defined. As Peirce pointed out, the
objective world exists, regardless of what anyone thinks of
it...Therefore, I do think that the object exists 'before it is
denoted'. To consider that objects only exist when denoted [by
someone?] is..nominalism.
3] With regard to the process of semiosis, you could check Robert
Marty's lattice, which shows, quite clearly, how semiosic
interactions begin with the sensate stimuli of 1ns.
4] With regard to your question about unicorns - whether they
'exist' or are 'real' - again, both terms would have to be defined.
But in my view, unicorns most certainly exist. They exist in the
conceptual realm - but not in the biological realm. I don't think
that our world can be confined only to physico-chemical or biological
existents; our concepts and thoughts are also existent. I would define
a universal, such as 'goodness' or 'beauty' as 'real', whereas a
particular object, even if conceptual such as a unicorn or Zeus,
would, in my view, be defined as 'existent'.
Edwina
On Mon 01/02/21 1:15 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Supplement: With "law" I was meaning "universally valid law", not
a law stated by a sect, religion, or myth. These would not concern
the difference between the NOT- operator and the EXIST- operator, as
both are universal, none of them is particularistic. Particularistic
"laws" I would not call "laws", but illusions or collusions.
Edwina, I find it interesting, that you think, that the semiosic
process begins with 1ns, I originally think so too. That is, because
in my opinion, the object does not exist before it is denoted. The
sign/representamen makes something (a subject?) an object. I only
wrote "2-1-3" to not raise a discussion about sequence, as most
others always vote for "2-1-3". Regarding the other points, maybe I
have not used the proper terms "exist" and "real", or haven´t you, in
this case? Isnt it so, that unicorns don´t exist, but are real? Or
have I mixed it up again? Anyways, can anybody see through all the
mistakes I have written that what I was meaning to tell, whether it
is all bull or there is something about it? I thought having refuted
the "transparent-world"-hypothesis and tried to show an alternative.
Best, Helmut 01. Februar 2021 um 18:09 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 [4] .
► 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 [5] . ► 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
[4] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[5] 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.
