Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

d I’m even more inclined to think that people > who pick a few plums out of the Peircean pie and ignore the rest are likely > to be missing its best features. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 30-Nov-17 10:05

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

eople > who pick a few plums out of the Peircean pie and ignore the rest are likely > to be missing its best features. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 30-Nov-17 10:05 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusyst

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

pick a few plums out of the Peircean pie and ignore the rest are likely to be missing its best features. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 30-Nov-17 10:05 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L]

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

Gary F., List: I suspect that it was another case of Peirce being modest in this particular letter, since elsewhere he referred to the existential graphs as "my chef d'oeuvre" (letter to Jourdain, 1908; given by the editors as the subtitle for CP 4.347-584). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

On 11/29/2017 4:00 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: I gather that your reason for concluding that the 1909/11 rendition of EGs was “preferred” by Peirce is that he knew that his letter to Kehler would be widely circulated among Lady Welby’s circle and thought that they could gain more recognition

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

...@bestweb.net] Sent: 29-Nov-17 14:28 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Cc: Dau, Frithjof <frithjof@sap.com> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14 Gary, Please look at the attached diagram egprim.gif. EGs are truly diagrammatic: Every syntactic feature can be shown without a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

Gary, Please look at the attached diagram egprim.gif. EGs are truly diagrammatic: Every syntactic feature can be shown without any use of language. This is slide 4 of http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf . I apologize for the mistake about 'spot'. I checked Don Roberts' book, which I first

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

like). See the new commentary on 2.14 which I posted just now. Gary f. -Original Message- From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] Sent: 27-Nov-17 02:06 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Cc: Dau, Frithjof <frithjof@sap.com> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

John, Thank you very much! - I was wondering why I did not find PEG in the list. Now it's all making sense. With gratitude, Kirsti John F Sowa kirjoitti 27.11.2017 09:05: Gary F, Mary L, Kirsti, Jerry LRC, and list, In 1911, Peirce presented his clearest and simplest version of EGs. He

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 and 2.14

Gary F, Mary L, Kirsti, Jerry LRC, and list, In 1911, Peirce presented his clearest and simplest version of EGs. He explained the essentials in just 8 pages of NEM (3:162 to 169). I believe that it is his final preferred version, and I'll use it for explaining issues about the more complex 1903

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

List: > On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:42 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Jerry, > >>> If Peirce had intended any further meaning, he would have >>> mentioned it explicitly. >> Really? > > They're not conjectures. They're observations based on studying > Peirce's writings. If you claim

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

e blot is > part of a system for the analysis of “necessary reasoning,” and musement is > at the other (more spontaneous) end of the spectrum of thought. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Mary Libertin [mailto:mary.liber...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 21-Nov-17 12:04 >

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

:04 To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Sharon Hattrick <dr.hattr...@gmail.com>; g...@gnusystems.ca Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13 To clarify the start of my previous post, the 4th paragraph I mention is Peirce’s 4th paragraph. Rather than retype it here, I’l

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

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 following passage? From 2.13: it seems reasonable that any decidedly marked point of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

On 11/21/2017 11:48 AM, Mary Libertin wrote: In para 4 states that the first use should be in bold to designate it as the first. This is similar in some ways to the type/token distinction... Peirce said that selectives serve the same role as pronouns or a kind of artificial proper name, such

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

To clarify the start of my previous post, the 4th paragraph I mention is Peirce’s 4th paragraph. Rather than retype it here, I’ll just point to it: “There is nothing to prevent ...” Please reread it and Peirce’s surrounding paragraphs. Thanks. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM Mary Libertin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

I am interested in the 4th paragraph below. I am presenting the following as an attempt to continue this interesting discussion. Peirce In para 4 states that the first use should be in bold to designate it as the first. This is similar in some ways to the type/token distinction, and designating

[PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.13

Continuing from Lowell 2.12: https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903-low ell-lecture-ii/display/13617 I now pass to the beta part of the system of existential graphs. It is far more interesting and important than the alpha part but incomparably less so than