[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

FOLG.  Discussion Note 11

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 5.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003139.html
In: FOLG-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3135

Joe, Peirce List,

JR: All I can see in what you are saying below is a dodging of
    the questions I am raising about what you are doing, Jon.

I do not know what problem you have with my answer.

JR: What apparent contradiction, bearing on
    the question I raised, do you have in mind?

We we talking about about the place where he says explicitly
that there are symbols that are neither iconic nor indexical,
a thing which is understandable as following from the generic
definition of a sign relation, as in NEM 4, L75, and the places
where he says that all symbols involve icons and indices, which
there does not appear to be any way of deriving from the general
definition of a sign relation.  So I'm assuming that some other
assumptions are being taken for granted in the contexts where he
says these things, most likely, that he pnly concerned with the
types of symbols that express certain orders of predications.

JR: I notice, by the way, that you seem to be making an appeal to the 
    syntax-semantic distinction as part of the basis for your view.
    Where do you find any such distinction in Peirce's writings
    on logic?

I do not know what you mean by "making an appeal to the syntax-semantic distinction".
I am making reference to the distinction in roles between objects and signs in the
definition of a sign relation.  I'm sure that you must have read this somewhere
in Peirce's writings on logic, so I won't run to look it up right now.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o