Re: [PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was Ambiguities...

Jon: Excellent post! Cheers Jerry > On Mar 22, 2019, at 10:17 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > John, List: > > The new thread title is alarmist hyperbole, and the post below--after > offering the kind of non-apology apology > that is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

Joe, List: > On Mar 21, 2019, at 6:43 PM, joseph simpson wrote: > > John Sowa's statements were given in the context of 'proposition analysis.' > > From the "Handbook of Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics," page 5: > > "logically equivalent propositions: compound propositions that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (prelude to Ambiguities...

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:31 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Jerry >>> JFS: You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause. >>> >> This is not even an argument. The sentence does reflect on its >> author’s capacities. > > It's not a comment on his capacity. It's a comment on his refusal to >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was Ambiguities...

John, List: The new thread title is alarmist hyperbole, and the post below--after offering the kind of non-apology apology that is all too common in our society today--simply doubles down on the fundamental misunderstanding of Peirce's entire

[PEIRCE-L] The danger of destroying Peirce's semeiotic (was Ambiguities...

Edwina, Jon AS, Gary R, and List, I apologize if anyone was offended by the release of excerpts from offline notes. My only excuse is that I sent it at 2:10 AM. The next morning, I was surprised that I had hit SEND. The conclusion of that note is far more important than a debating point. I

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

Edwina, Jon, John, list, Edwina wrote: ET: I question the use of off-line comments to support the analysis and conclusions of an argument. Off-line comments are usually in support of a poster and do not, in themselves, include any argument. If they did include data and analysis - then, they

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (prelude to Ambiguities...

Jerry and Joe, I'll say more about related issues in the thread on ambiguities. But I just wanted to comment on these points: JAS: you throw everything possible into the predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I throw everything possible into the subject, leaving only a continuous

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

Edwina, List: One more time--I agree completely. However, what you describe is not what happened in this case. John received off-List comments supporting him against me, and I received off-List comments supporting me against him. He shared some of the comments that he received with me

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }JAS - I don't want to get into a fuss about this but I think you are missing my point - which is that off-list comments frequently are not about the topic but about the poster. About the biases and personal agendas which

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

John, List: JFS: But Jon's claim that a subject could be a Seme contradicts the foundations of Peirce's semeiotic. Peirce himself explicitly disagreed. "The first member of the triplet, the 'Seme,' embraces the logical Term, the *Subject *or Object of a sentence ..." (R 295:11[28]; 1906, bold

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

Edwina, List: Again, I agree completely. For the record, here is how I concluded my off-List message to John, which he opted not to include in his post. As Peirce himself put it, "Different people have such wonderfully different ways of thinking" (CP 6.462, EP 2:437; 1908). In my case, I do my

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Yes, JAS, but I also meant that one doesn't, even in a private off-list exchange, send to each other what someone else has written about you - as a tactic to support one's argument!. So- neither you nor John should have

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

John, List: JFS: As I said, you pick random quotations out of context and apply them without considering whether they are relevant to the issue. There is nothing random or irrelevant about looking up the definitions of "subject" and "predicate" in an ordinary dictionary (*Merriam Webster's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

List: I agree completely with Edwina. What John Sowa failed to mention is that he initiated our off-List exchange by relaying similar comments about me that others had sent to him. I will not provide them here, because I believe that it is highly inappropriate to post someone else's off-List

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I question the use of off-line comments to support the analysis and conclusions of an argument. Off-line comments are usually in support of a poster and do not, in themselves, include any argument. If they did

[PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

Jon and I had an offline exchange. He sent me a list of offline comments by readers who were also misled by the ambiguity in the word 'subject'. See the *anonymous* comments below. A mistaken interpretation of just one word is not a big deal. But Jon's claim that a subject could be a Seme