Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project, was, Re: Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

2024-02-14 Thread John F Sowa
Robert, I agree that lattices would make a good formal structure for classifying and organizing interpretants. If all the interpretants are derived by formal rules of inference according to some formal logic, then a lattice would be the appropriate mathematical structure for organizing and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project, was, Re: Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

2024-02-14 Thread robert marty
John, List John, concerning Peirce's mathematical background, I can't find a note attached to your message, but perhaps I misread it? I want to point out, however, that I did some research to find out whether Peirce was aware of Lattice Theory since I think you are aware that over forty years

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project, was, Re: Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

2024-02-10 Thread John F Sowa
Gary R, Robert M, Jon AS, Edwina, List, Thanks, Gary, for explaining our points of agreement. As you emphasize in bold face, we all agree with Nathan Houser and with Short that Peirce’s later taxonomy “is sketchy, tentative, and, as best I can make out, incoherent” (Short 2007, p. 260). But

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project, was, Re: Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

2024-02-10 Thread robert marty
List, I agree with JAS on the architectonic character of the classification of the sciences. I want to complement what he says further and be even more precise about Peirce's deeper thinking. Indeed, JAS is perfectly suitable to note that applying the principle of classification (which Peirce

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project, was, Re: Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

2024-02-09 Thread Gary Richmond
Jon, I would tend to strongly agree with what you've written. However, this passage seems to me to need a bit of 'unpacking' to be entirely clear. JAS: The necessity of collateral experience/observation for any sign to be understood is one of Peirce's most notable insights. It leads to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project, was, Re: Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

2024-02-09 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Gary, List: Indeed, as I have said before, usefulness is in the eye of the beholder; and as Peirce himself said, "True science is distinctively the study of useless things. For the useful things will get studied without the aid of scientific men" (CP 1.76, c. 1896). Nobody should disparage one

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project, was, Re: Interpretants, as analyzed and discussed by T. L. Short

2024-02-09 Thread Gary Richmond
List, John, Edwina, Jon, How differently some other distinguished scholars see this matter of the 'usefulness' of Peirce's semeiotic project than John Sowa appears to. Consider this passage near the conclusion of a paper by Nathan Houser in a festschrift for Lucia Santaella published just last