Re: Peirce on Definition and Determination

Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.inquiry
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Re: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/03/09/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-objective-logic/
Re: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/04/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-logic-as-semiotic/

Jim Willgoose wrote:
 >
 > Thanks for the 1902 passage, ("minute logic").  It makes a lot of sense to me that
 > the development and growth or function of the symbol can only take place within
 > an anatomy;  a formal anatomy, which governs the development of the symbol.
 > This anatomy is modal.  It is also normative with respect to the functional
 > or "natural" development of logic.  (In this vein, take a look at the 1903
 > letter to Dewey critical of the work of the Chicago School.)  Provability,
 > Permissability, Believability, Possibility are all notions that suggest
 > a "formal" basis for the quasi-necessary growth and development of the
 > symbol.  (It may be that none of these notions are "positive.")

Jim & All,

We discussed that passage on Objective Logic a little while back,
until we reached the customary fork of diverging interpretations.
The relation between classical logic and its supposed alternatives
is a current interest of mine, but I can see no alternative except
to view it from the classical side.  This may be due to the way that
modalities -- from impossible to possible and contingent to necessary --
are viewed by the Platonic realist mathematician.  What is possible is
real and thus realized in the requisite space of possibility.  Then the
possible may be surveyed, at any rate, at the end of inquiry, with regard
to the way its real extension may be found arrayed under its comprehension.
Of course you see the catch -- “at the end of inquiry” -- and there the rub
must be left to its itch, for now.

But I cited that passage this time around only for the sake of collating its
introduction, “Logic, in the sense of Normative Semeotic”, with the words of
Peirce's definition, “Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic”, giving
us reason to say that Peirce equates “formal” with “normative” in this frame.

Regards,

Jon

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
_______________________________________________
Inquiry mailing list
[email protected]
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/inquiry
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.