Re: Pragmatic Maxim
Re: Academia.edu • Milo Gardner
- MG:
- Do you agree that Peirce was limited to bivalent logic?
Taking classical logic as a basis for reasoning is no more limiting than taking Dedekind cuts as a basis for constructing the real number line. For Peirce’s relational approach to logic as semiotics the number of dimensions in a relation is more important than the number of values in each dimension. That is where 3 makes a difference over 2.
cc: Inquiry Driven Systems • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
Inquiry Into Inquiry 
Pingback: Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Jon,
You, Peirce, Aristotle and other bivalent thinkers are oddly locked into a yes and no world of logical dead ends. Your group think is unable and unwilling to attempt to capture, in a single word, even the most basic of maybe aspects of life as the three‑part world of Aymara and trivalent thinkers are required to encode, every time.
Esperanto died because of its limited scope of encoding life by only considering yes and no logic trees.
Said another way, bivalent thinkers regularly omit any aspect of a subject that their culture, or as an individual, feels uncomfortable, an obvious way of false reporting of snap shots of life.
In conclusion: bivalent thinkers traditionally infer no error of logic since none were intended, hence no error can ever be assigned culturally or individually to yes, no forms of two‑part logic.
Yet, early binary code used by computers was filled with these yes and no (0, 1) logical dead ends, reported as bugs, bugs that were easily identified and slowly repaired.
May bivalent thinkers learn how to repair their logical dead ends.
Best Wishes,
Milo Gardner
Pingback: Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry