Thread:
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14236
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14249
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14264
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14265
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14267
Gary, List,
I suppose this is one of those things that depends on the door one came in by.
In my case it was CP 3&4, the first book that ever moved me to spend that much
money ($35!), back in a day when a pair of blue jeans cost $5.50 and my average
textbook, even a computer science textbook, cost about the same. So I tend to
view a lot of Peirce's late work, aside from the logical graphs (entitative and
existential) as muffled verbal echoes of his early mathematical shock waves.
Regards,
Jon
Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Jon, I too find more continuity than discontinuity in the development of
Peirce's thought. However, I don't think that following that development in
chronological order is the easiest or best way to understand his "truly
radical ideas". My experience has been that we can clearly see the roots of
those ideas in his early work (1865-70) only after we've become well
acquainted with his later work (such as the contents of EP2). For instance, I
would never recommend to a beginner in Peirce that they start with the 1867
"New List of Categories", because that paper is far more difficult to follow
than almost anything in EP2. That's why I've recommended Peirce's "New
Elements" (1904) as the best companion text to Chapter 3 of NP. For one
thing, it serves as a better introduction to Peirce's concept of Information
= Comprehension × Extension than Peirce's 1867 paper on the subject,
important as that is.
Personally I'm reluctant to spend much time studying Peirce's algebraic
formulations of logic because, when I do so, I feel afterwards that I've
learned a new notation but nothing about logic that I didn't already know;
and that's also been my experience with translations of Peirce's early
notation into the more prevalent notational conventions of our time. For
someone well versed in those conventions, your work is a good pathway to
Peirce, I think, but lacking any training in mathematical logic myself, it
seems to be a long and roundabout path for the likes of me. I find NP itself
to be much more direct. Or at least more concise.
gary f.
-----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sent: 23-Sep-14 9:48 AM To: Gary Fuhrman Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee;
Peirce List: Subject: Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.1
Peircers,
As a general rule, I find more continuity than discontinuity in the
development of Peirce's thought over time. To my way of reading it, the
divergences we see in the record of his thought have more to do with the
increasing diversity of his audiences over time than earthshaking shifts in
his general standpoint.
I think as more people shove their spades down to the strata between 1865 and
1870 the more they will find the roots of truly radical ideas about signs
and science, logic and inquiry, some of which have found their echoes in our
time but most of which have yet to be fully developed.
At any rate, these are the conclusions that I draw from my study of his
writings on the "laws of information", going back to the Harvard and Lowell
lectures of 1865 and 1866, to his first major work on the logic of relatives
in 1870.
Information = Comprehension × Extension
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Information_%3D_Comprehension_%C3%97_Extension
Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives
Regards,
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 .
