I suspect the fundamental reality of Peirce's thought was there at the
start and that his later work was consistent with what he had always
thought. After the PM was in place, everything was clarification. The
revolution lay in the work he anticipated would get done in future times as
a result of h
John, thanks for clarifying, I guess our perspectives are not so different
as I thought. But I still think that Peirce's did not have to wait until
1911 to "integrate every aspect of his philosophy" with EGs; I think they
co-evolved with those other aspects, philosophical problems being reflected
i
John, Jon, list
Some comments in response
In Peirce's view logic needs mathematical grounds, but I have not found
anything to support the view that there should be such sharp distinction
as you propose. – There were many, many classifications of sciences he
developed over the years. Of which
On 11/3/2017 10:38 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
For you, formal logic is a branch of mathematics; for us, though...
It's always a bad idea to make claims about anyone else's thoughts,
contemporary or historical. It's best to quote their exact words.
As for me, I completely agree with Peirce:
point of view far from easy to a person as imbued with logical
notions as I am."
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 3-Nov-17 00:21
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.6
Gary F,
There are
Gary F,
There are two separate issues here: (1) the isomorphism between Peirce's
1911 system and his earlier presentations; and (2) the relationship
between Peirce's endoporeutic and GTS.
About #1, the issues are clear for first-order logic (Alpha + Beta):
every graph drawn according to the 1903
sulting confusion on Peirce.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 2-Nov-17 16:08
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Cc: Dau, Frithjof
> Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.6
>
>
sion is "isomorphic" to Peirce's 1903 version, and
then blame the resulting confusion on Peirce.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 2-Nov-17 16:08
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Cc: Dau, Frithjof
Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Low
Gary F, Jeff BD, Kirsti, Jon A,
I didn't respond to your previous notes because I was tied up with
other work. Among other things, I presented some slides for a telecon
sponsored by Ontolog Forum. Slide 23 (cspsci.gif attached) includes
my diagram of Peirce's classification of the sciences and
Hi Gary F, List,
Gary F: "The implication is that the form of the “scroll” is in some way
appropriate to its object, instead of being arbitrarily assigned to that
object."
The guiding idea for developing each sort of figure in the EG, such as the
scroll, is to construct a diagram in which t
Gary F, John S, List,
The EGs are being developed as a mathematical system of logic. Peirce conceives
of the framework within which the system is being developed as a topological
system. As such, I'm working on the assumption that it will be helpful to think
of the EG as a system of mathematic
11 matches
Mail list logo
