Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 4
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/08/05/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-4/
Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Flashback
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/07/23/inquiry-into-inquiry-flash-back/
Re: FB Comment • Daniel Everett
Russell's Figure. Othello Believes Desdemona Loves Cassio
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/o-believes-d-loves-c…
<QUOTE DE:>
The most interesting aspect of such constructions from my perspective
is that embedding is unnecessary for the reading. In Piraha you can
get independent clauses expressing the same thing. Or even in English.
Othello believes something. That something is that Desdemona loves Cassio.
So the advantage of Peircean graphs (and later of Discourse Representation
Theory) is that the syntactic feature of embedding is not crucial. Just as
in larger discourse of multiple independent sentences.
</QUOTE>
All,
Russell asks, “How shall we describe the logical form of a belief?”
The question is a good onen, maybe too good, loaded with a surplus of
meanings for “logical form”. Read in the spectrum of interpretive lights
traditional schools of thought have brought to bear on it, “logical form”
hovers between the poles of objective form and syntactic form without ever
settling down. A more stable fix on its practical sense can be gained from
the standpoint staked out by Peirce on the basis of the pragmatic maxim
(
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/ ), aiming at
objective structure and seeing syntactic structure as accessory to that aim.
To be continued …
Reference
=========
Bertrand Russell, “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”, pp. 35–155
in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, edited with an introduction by
David Pears, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985. First published 1918.
Resources
=========
Notes on Russell’s “Philosophy of Logical Atomism” • Note 25
https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Philosophical_Notes#POLA
https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Philosophical_Notes#POLA_25