List, Jon: My apologies, it was not my intent to mis-inform the list in general or you Jon in particular about the subject under discussion.
To remove the mis-interpretation, I have reposted under the historical thread. Hopefully, this will clarify the intent and purpose of my post, that is, an open discussion of the Writings of CSP. Cheers Jerry > On Nov 5, 2024, at 11:22 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 > > > > > >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 11:35 PM Jerry LR Chandler >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> List, Jon, Gary, Helmut: >>>> On Nov 1, 2024, at 5:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Of course, Peirce rejected all three of these in favor of scholastic >>>> realism--propositions do not (metaphysically) exist, but they are real as >>>> representations of purported facts prescinded from reality as a whole. >>> >>> From the perspective of the histories of the sciences and the goals of >>> meaningful communication, I find this conjecture to nothing less than >>> absurd. >>> >>> CSP developed his notions of logic from chemical demonstrations and gives >>> many many examples of this throughout his texts. (Personal and scientific >>> integrity require every CSP scholar to acknowledge the scientific role of >>> these concepts in evaluating CSP texts.) These demonstrations of material >>> facts are remote from the assertions that CSP's originality is merely a >>> minor extension of "scholastic realism” >>> >>> I would suggest that the first four Aristotelian categories (substance, >>> quality, quantity, and relatives) are the principle basis of the >>> developments of the structuralism presented in: >>> >>> Quality-signs, sin-signs, legi-signs, >>> Images(icons), indicies, symbols >>> Rhema, decisions, arguments >>> >>> such that chemical demonstrations are grounded on the chemical indices as >>> constituents of chemical symbols and the “legi-signs" (identities) of the >>> sin-signs. >>> >>> I would further suggest that for CSP, the role of the indices is placed in >>> the center of the eight other terms because it is a direct logical >>> quantitative connective to the qualities and term assignments of all >>> chemical demonstrations. The corresponding grammar of the chemical >>> connectives (essential to semiosis) are expressions of the meanings of >>> connectivity of the semiotic with the semes (cognitive signs), the >>> semiology (legisigns) with the semantics. >>> >>> My reasoning for this logical perspectives is that it is consistent with >>> chemical practice, then and now. >>> The modern chemical practice is grounded in the TERM logic of Aristotelian >>> syllogisms, (chemical elements as names of objects) not the sentential >>> logic of modern first predicate logic grounded in various connectives that >>> are totally unrelated to CSP expressions of chemical connectives as the >>> source of lattice points. >>> >>> In modern terminology, the Quali-signs (semiotic terms) determine the >>> indices of the sin-sign (identity of the object) which in turn determine >>> the argument that generates the legi-sign (the name of the chemical >>> object). In set theoretic terms, the set of indices (determined / >>> demonstrated from) the quali-sign are arranged to assign the organization >>> of the legisign. This line of reasoning follows the structuralism of >>> modern mathematics in the sense of [ “sets” —> "permutation groups” —> >>> “categories”] for any chemical object, including higher order perplex >>> structures. >>> >>> 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
