Questions have arisen in several places about classical logic and its vicissitudes, what used to be called “deviant logics” in some circles, all of which I recall being hot topics and much-mooted questions when I was a young wffer-snapper and Novice In Logic (NIL) back in the day.
That whole ball of wax still preserves a number of my oldest research questions and I have a rough sense of where the edges of my knowledge wedge into it, bit by bit, here and there. Part of it had to do with the conflict and confluence between extensional and intensional logic, while other parts arose from difficulties with “intentional contexts”. The persons of the play on this stage ranged from Leibniz on one side to Russell and Quine on the other, with Peirce as the “Magister Ludi”, the Grand Integrator. Now, I’ve actually been doing my best to avoid getting into this particular kettle of fish, but I ran across a bunch of old notes on it while looking for earlier thoughts on differential logic and dynamic systems so I’ll post a bare link by way of reminder to come back later, clean up the old texts, and share them to my blog.
This is all stuff that would have been posted to the old Ontology List and the Peirce List or one of its avatars. I don’t quite remember why I used the title “De In Esse Predication” but it had to do with a link I saw between Leibniz and Peirce, and it’s possible I got it all wrong.