Jon wrote: "But analogies and icons all break in time, at one (090614-1) point or another, and it is only their embedding in a more fluid and robust symbolic matrix that makes it possible for us to use them where they fit and to set them aside when they fail."
By "symbolic matrix" do you mean algebraic and formal expressions in contrast to diagrams ? Sung > Re: Frederik Stjernfelt > At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13901 > > Exactly. > > And this is one of those places where we have to watch out for the > possibility of a backward step, > where it is very tempting to fall back on the "Mirror Of Nature Theory Of > Science" (MONTOS) and the > "Iconic Doctrine Of Language" (IDOL). ;) > > The diagrammatic and dynamic qualities of Peirce's logic, as epitomized in > the entitative and > existential interpretations of his logical graphs, were chief among the > features that drew me to > explore his logical systems from the very beginning of my studies. But > analogies and icons all > break in time, at one point or another, and it is only their embedding in > a more fluid and robust > symbolic matrix that makes it possible for us to use them where they fit > and to set them aside when > they fail. > > Regards, > > Jon > > Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: >> Dear Jon, list - >> I also remarked that in McCulloch. >> You're right about the less than straightforward relation between >> logical consequence and temporal sequence If the two were identical, >> mental processes probably would be unable to address contents different >> from those processes >> Best >> F >> >> Den 04/09/2014 kl. 16.10 skrev Jon Awbrey >> <jawb...@att.net<mailto:jawb...@att.net>>: >> >> Re: Frederik Stjernfelt >> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13886 >> >> Frederik, >> >> Yes, the orthogonality or independence of descriptive and normative >> sciences is noted by McCulloch in his opening lines. The thing that >> struck me like a lightning synapse when I first read that passage, long >> time passing, was the fact that he set the logical arrow opposite to the >> causal arrow, invoking the shade of Duns Scotus and bound causes, which >> I looked up once or twice but didn't exactly get clear about, but anyway >> it sets the mind to thinking that there is nothing terribly automatic or >> straightforward about the relation of logical consequence and temporal >> sequence. Realizing that possibility opens up a much wider field, and I >> dare say a more realistic field of investigation. >> >> Et sic deinceps ... >> >> Jon >> > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
