Peircers, Since the subject keeps coming up, here is the first of the old posts Google threw up when I did the search linked in my reply to FS below:
> [Arisbe] Re: Critique of Short — News Flash — The N.O.N.-Psychological > Jon Awbrey jawbrey at att.net > Sat Jan 22 11:08:16 CST 2005 > > Previous message: [peirce-l] Re: Critique of Short — News Flash — The Ineffables > Next message: [Arisbe] Critique of Short: Significance of MS 148 > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o > > Kirsti, > > Strictly speaking, Peirce advises a non-psychological approach > to logic, which he defines as formal semiotic, using "formal" > to mean "quasi-necessary", which is the moral equivalent of > "normative" to us. I have mentioned before that the prefix, > "non" frequently serves as a generalizing functor in math, > as in the study of non-associative algebras, which includes > those algebras that do satisfy the associative axiom along > with those that do not. It is just as if "non" was really > an acronym for "not of necessity". I have also argued that > semiotics in general has room for a descriptive semiotics, > under which would fall many applications to the descriptive, > or non-therapeutic, side of psychology, in which Peirce was > evidently rather interested, of course. > > But there is nothing about cardinality, causality, cognition, or continuity > in the barest unpsychological definitions of sign relations, and so if we > find those considerations coming into our discussions of sign relations, > it is either because we have explicitly added some additional axioms and > definitions, or else because we are treading on unexpressed assumptions, > which being non-conscious, are likely to vary widely from participant to > participant in the discussion. Of course, much diversion lies that way. > > Jon Awbrey > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o Jon Awbrey wrote: > Re: Frederik Stjernfelt > At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13859 > > Dear Frederik, > > Have you read my 1 or 3 citations of Peirce's "non-psychological" > definition of logic? > > https://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-psychological%22+%22Jon+Awbrey%22&num=100&as_qdr=all&filter=0 > > > Well, then you'd know that this topic is hardly a novel one here or > elsewhere on the web. > > All kidding aside, there are important things and less important > things. We appear to agree on the substance of Peirce's position and on > its importance. More incidental is the question of describing his view > in terms that are less likely to be misunderstood by wider communities > of interpretation. All I tried to do here is to share my experience that > folks in logic and math tend to read certain connotations into > "anti-psychologism", folks in cognitive science tend to import other > connotations, and all those extraneous meanings tend to lead people > astray. FWIW, as the saying goes. > > Regards, > > Jon > > Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: >> Dear Jon - >> >> Did you read my chapter on anti-psychologism? I am flattered that some >> participants are so anxious to debate the themes of my book that they >> jump ahead in the discussion! >> As early as 1865, Peirce said: "But I will go a step further and say >> that we ought to adopt a thoroughly unpsychological view of logic . . >> . (W1 164)." I think P never wavered from that point of view. That >> does not imply P regarded psychology as such as irrelevant, quite on >> the contrary, he was a pioneer in expermental psychology. He also >> thought psychology might investigate issues pertaining to how e.g. the >> human mind processes logic and reasoning, cf. its speed, attention >> span, concentration, etc. >> But as to logic itself - even taking P's broad definition comprizing >> semiotics and the theory of science he called methodeutics - it should >> be thoroughly unpsychological. I do not think anti-psychologism is a >> misnomer for that position. >> >> Best >> F >> >> >> Den 02/09/2014 kl. 21.00 skrev Jon Awbrey >> <jawb...@att.net<mailto:jawb...@att.net>> >> : >> >> Frederik, >> >> Yes, I know that Frege was strongly "anti-" but Peirce's position is >> more nuanced than that, and the adjective "non-psychological" has the >> benefit of being one that Peirce actually used to describe his >> definition of logic. I made that suggestion in the hopes of avoiding >> some futile discussions, the likes of which I was pained to experience >> in cognitive sci circles all through the 80s. So nuff said on that. >> >> 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 .
