Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

Jerry, If Peirce had intended any further meaning, he would have mentioned it explicitly. Really? Yes, really. Peirce wrote about logic and EGs in multiple articles, lectures, and MSS. He didn't say everything in every article. But if you can't find something in at least one source, it's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

Gary, list, This is convincing and very instructive. I need to spend much more time on the third and following paragraphs of your explanation. The first two of your answer jogged a memory of Peirce saying there is no absolute individuality, with him using Philip Drunk and Sober as an example.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

List, John > On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:28 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > >> >> The term “trust” is remote from the logic of symbolic substitutions. > > If Peirce had intended any further meaning, he would have > mentioned it explicitly. Really? > > There is no notion of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

On 11/22/2017 10:50 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: This is common in the formal logic of the chemical sciences. Peirce studied logic long before he studied chemistry. He picked up his brother's copy of Whatley's logic when he was 12. Boole's two books (1847, 1854) were published when he was 8

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

Mary, list, In turning our attention to beta graphs, Peirce is addressing the problem of how to represent an individual In the logical sense, or an existing thing in the ontological sense. In ordinary language it can be represented by a proper name (as opposed to a common noun, which is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

List: > On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:42 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 11/21/2017 4:08 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> CSP’s strange insistence on the logical perplexity of repeating words in >> sentences (or on sheets of assertion) has long puzzled me. > > Are you referring to the