Cf: De In Esse Predication
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,
another part of it had to with the question of “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.
De In Esse Predication
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.