Jon,
I admit that I was looking at the printed book, Reasoning and the logic of
things. In that book, the transcription shows a clearly drawn line that
connects the oval to the word 'is'. That is an excellent notation. I admit
that the MS copies below are ambiguous. But the two sentences
List:
The sole reason that Peirce expresses in R L376 (1911 Dec 6) for needing to
add a Delta part to EGs is "in order to deal with modals," which he
explicitly and repeatedly defines elsewhere as propositions involving
possibility or necessity. As I spell out in detail in my forthcoming paper,
John, List:
JFS: I already answered these points.
I could say the same thing, but I will likewise give it another try.
JFS: Please look at the example in RLT. A line of identity by itself is a
complete, fully formed EG.
There is no line of identity in that one-of-a-kind EG. The line
John, List:
JFS: I appreciate your comments, even though they disagree with what I
believe Peirce intended. But I can see that I need to respond to the
questions you raise in the article I'm writing.
Likewise, I appreciate your responses and the ongoing dialogue. As I see
it, what we are
Gary,
I think that using the participial form gives the correct notion of process
involved in reaching the state of idealism.
M.
-Original Message-
From: Gary Richmond
Sent: Feb 25, 2024 12:17 AM
To: Michael Shapiro
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L]
Michael,
What do you think of Ivo Ibri's
