Jerry, List: I appreciate the new subject line reflecting the actual topic of your post, about which I have nothing to say at this time. I will simply note that my statements that are quoted and dismissed below are not my own conjectures, they straightforwardly express positions that are well within the mainstream of Peirce scholarship.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 11:20 PM Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List, Jon: > > On Nov 2, 2024, at 11:22 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jerry, List: > > As has generally been the case with your other recent posts, I frankly do > not see the relevance of this one to what the rest of us have been > discussing. It does not appear to have anything at all to do with the > thread topic. > > Jon, it may surprise you, but a "thread topic” does not imply any sort of > limit to the meanings your readers may place on your text. > > It is not a "conjecture" that Peirce rejected fictionalism, conceptualism, > and Platonism regarding the ontological status of abstract objects > (including propositions) in favor of scholastic realism. > > May I assume that these assertions are insufficient to even form a > conjecture? > > It is also not a "conjecture" that he classified propositions as dicent > symbols and therefore legisigns/types, which do not (metaphysically) *exist > *except when and where they are embodied in sinsigns/tokens as > replicas/instances. > > Frankly, this sentence is simply a silly word salad. > > The nine relative terms are intimately interconnected in the logic of > natural philosophy. CSP is always writing as a mathematician, a logician > and a natural scientist with broad contributions in both physics and > chemistry. As I noted, these terms are part and parcel of chemical > demonstrations and evolved to connect the Aristotelian and Newtonian > notions of “analysis and synthesis” of logical categories. I would > suggest that the language of chemical demonstrations that center around the > indices of relatives is one of the natural philosophical pillars of > pragmatic thinking. (Given the limits of the envisioning capabilities of > most readers here, I would presuppose that this paragraph is beyond the > horizons of meaningful expressions! :-)] > > Jon, as well as other readers, I would suggest that one should search for > these nine terms in the writings of early modern philosophers (as I have > done.). In other words, find some evidence. > > The most relevant source that I have identified are the Aristotelian > categories (substance, quality, quantity (indices!) and relatives. > > Notably, these nine terms ignore Kantian referral to “space-time” objects. > > More notably, is the relevance to the lengthy writings of Suarez on “The > Real Relation" as well as the John Deely’s translation of Poinsot and his > post-modern texts that are widely cited in today's semiotics community. > > I am not in any way seeking to downplay Peirce's originality as a thinker. > > This assertion is well,…. It appears to be an unintended consequence > of your style of work. > > After all, he went well beyond the term logic of Aristotelian syllogisms > by *inventing *modern first-order predicate logic independently of Frege. > > As I noted before, the chemical, molecular biological, biological and > bio-medical sciences are all grounded on material demonstrations where the > subjects of sentences are individual terms with definite descriptions. How > could natural philosophy be otherwise? > > In fact, it is Peirce's notation for the latter (not Frege's), employing > the existential and universal quantifiers, that evolved (via Russell) into > what we use today. > > From the perspective of the natural sciences, this is another silly > assertion. The indices of the chemical sciences are all quantifiers, all > relatives of the atomic table of elements, all relatives of the atomic > numbers. The very existence of the Table of Elements as the source of all > molecular objects is a compelling argument against the artificial notion of > “universal” forms of real objects. Is this not the reason that Bertrand > Russell introduced the notion of “Indefinite descriptions” and its > subsequent grounding role in analytical philosophy? > > Jon, you may wish to explore the role of the copula in sentences with > definite and / or indefinite descriptions which refer to transformations of > matter. I found such an inquiry to be very fruitful for separating the > precision of molecular biological / genetic relatives from the vague > notions of physical properties. (CSP had noted this, for example, w.r.t the > handedness of the tartaric acid crystals described by Pasteur.) > > One of my colleagues, a Ph D physicist who works in applied areas, likes > to say, “Physics is the art of approximates.” The biochemical processes of > biological reproduction demand incredible precision. It appears to me that > the engineering and philosophical communities should prepare for discarding > many classical ideas, just as CSP did when he proposed the trichotomies. > > Cheers > > Jerry >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
