ONT Re: Extension x Comprehension = Information
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Douglas McDavid wrote:
>
> Jon --
>
> Once again, this is a nice toy example (and I take it
> of relatively ancient origin). The problem is, it's
> wrong. As all the nice, 'neat', toy examples always
> seem to be. For instance swine are omniverous, which
> may be the root of food tabus, I think I've seen.
> And, of course cloven-hooved mammals do not exhaust
> the universe of herbivores, nor does the list of four
> classifications exhaust the universe of cloven-hooved
> (Artiodactyls). So what are you (or Peirce) actually
> trying to say?
>
> Just another good-natured tweak!
not my example. probably not his, either. i do not know if something
got lost in the transmutton from greek and hebrew to latin and english,
or whether our forefatters were just more articulated in hypothetical
reasoning than we moderns have become. anyway, i gather that it's
the bare form of the logical skeleton, not the contingent fats of
the beasty flesh that matter the most here, don't you? the heart
of it lies, i guess, in the nature of the rationing that induces
a rule like "cloven-hoofed => herbivore" from the (pretenderized)
fact that "whatever => herbivore" and the (enfarced) case that
"whatever => cloven-hoofed". and what of the information,
and what roll the sign of the kind that we call an "index"
has to play in making this leap? yes, all of that, too.
and are tweaks as good as the natural kinds now?
or, maybe they're all just telling us that
"logical-minded" and "literal-minded" are
two kinds apart, never the twain to meat.
jon awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤