Category Archives: Peirce List

Re: Peirce List Discussion • John Sowa JFS: In the Lowell Lectures [1903] Peirce defined the Sheet of Assertion as the representation of a universe that was constructed during a discourse between Graphist and Grapheus. But that is just one … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • John Sowa JFS: In 1911, Peirce clarified [the] issues by using two distinct terms:  ‘the universe’ and ‘a sheet of paper’.  The sheet is no longer identified with the universe, and there is no reason why one couldn’t or … Continue reading →

Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA Re: Laws Of Form Discussion • JB Re: Peirce List Discussion • JA Many aspects of Peirce’s alpha graphs can be clarified by seeing how they relate to the corresponding Venn diagrams. In … Continue reading →

Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA Re: Peirce List Discussion • JA I’ll go ahead and copy out the first part of the article on Logical Implication, as I find I am still pleased with all I was able … Continue reading →

Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA Continuing discussion of the conditional form, as expressed in Peirce’s logical graphs under the existential interpretation, incited me to cite one of my own essays on the subject. Re: Peirce List Discussions • … Continue reading →

The World of Ā Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA The relationship between classical and non-classical logic is a topic that comes up from time to time in these discussions.  Inquiry into it tends to take a different tack … Continue reading →

Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA A couple of comments in response to questions about the relationship between Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form and the broader scope of Peirce’s Logical Graphs. Re: Peirce List Discussion • HR George Spencer Brown … Continue reading →

Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA Peirce’s use of the “scroll” as a graphical syntax for implication continued to raise many questions at this point in the Peirce List reading.  I think a lot of what bothers people has … Continue reading →

How Logic Got Its Blots Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA Taking positive implication as a basic construct, as Peirce does in the lectures at hand, one has to find a way to rationalize the introduction of negative concepts, … Continue reading →

Cf: Laws Of Form Discussion • JA A question arose concerning one of Peirce’s ways of explaining logical negation. Re: Peirce List Discussion • GF I commented as follows. One way of saying “not x” or “x is false” is … Continue reading →