Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14286
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14290
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14313
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14350
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14351
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14352
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14359
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14383
JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14388
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14394
Jerry, List,
If we understand what Peirce is talking about then it's usually fairly easy to
understand what he says, but it's almost impossible to understand what he says
if we do not understand what he's talking about.
That is not a paraphrase of the Meno paradox —
it is only a clue to the role of collateral
acquaintance in escaping the Meno paradox.
I'll try address your questions more directly tomorrow ...
Jon
Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
List, Jon:
These are excellent questions! What do you think about these
extentions?
These questions penetrate to the heart of CSP's rhetorical stance as
illustrated by the triadic triad:
qualisign, sinsign, legisign,
icon, index, symbol,
rhema, dicisign, argument.
If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences,
is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different
situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have
more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?)
Further questions about the purity of thought arise readily...
In particular, does the concept of a decisign emerge because of the
differences between pure and impure indices, such as the indices between
chains and branched chains of inferences?
On a technical note, often CSP's chains of inferences appear to start
with Lavoisier's principle of purity which is necessary for all exact
(pragmatic) logic of chemistry and molecular biology?
Does Lavoisier's principle of purity have any influence on CSP's use
of the terms, Pure Icon and Pure Index?
Cheers
Jerry
Jon Awbrey wrote:
As I recall, I began with Frederik's citation of Hilpinen's citation
of Peirce:
• http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14350
To which I added the following thoughts:
Points and questions that come to mind on reading this selection:
*Assertion*. Brings to mind my first university course in logic (Stoll,
perhaps). Based on what I later learned was a tradition extending from
Frege to Quine, the text made a distinction between considering or
contemplating a proposition and actually asserting it. This was invoked,
for example, to explain the difference between a conditional (→) and an
implication (⇒). I would eventually find more sensible ways of
understanding this.
*Force*. Seriously, experience has forced me to realize that nothing can
truly force anything to be an icon or force anyone to regard anything as an
icon.
*Independently and Separately*. These concepts require definition. As a
rule, logicians and mathematicians do not define them the same way normal
people do.
In puzzling over the paragraph that FS quoted from KS I thought it might help
to examine a bit more context. So I went back to my NEM copy of KS and there
it was already lined in the margin. So I reckoned that I had probably already
put it on line sometime. As it turned out I had already done that back in
2005. For my part, having a parsed-out copy on hand by link with the full
context in which we had been discussing it before is one part of what I
need to figure out what is going on there.
So I posted the link and text:
• http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14351
• http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/003187.html
The reason I keep using these links is not just for the sake of one bit
of text or another, but because they link into a context of quotations,
commentary, and discussion from a time when I had far more time for these
particular inquiries than I am ever likely to have again and when I was far
more deeply immersed in the issues that I can afford at present. So I must
continue to beg indulgence for that and I suggest it's just possible that
others may derive good gain from my recycling efforts.
Springing from this text, the following questions came to mind:
• http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14352
*Pure Icon and Pure Index*. What in the world could those be? And how could
a "degenerate" something be a "pure" anything? And while we're at it, must
there also be pure symbols, too?
Peirce more or less finesses the first two questions with his statement
that:
"Absolutely unexceptionable examples of degenerate forms must not
be expected. All that is possible is to give examples which tend
sufficiently in towards those forms to make the mean suggest what
is meant."
That may work for the specious signs but does it apply to the genus
of symbols?
With that da capo and recap I can now restore the context and continuity
of the present point in space-time-&-mind.
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 .
