Peirce List -- Various Tangents ===============================
Is CP 5.189 A Syllogism? JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18683 BU:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18775 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18778 GR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18781 GR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18791 JS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18792 JS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18806 Is CP 5.189 A Syllogism? Can Categorial Analysis Be Worthwhile? JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18807 ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18808 GR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18810 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18811 JS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18812 BU:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18813 JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18814 JS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18815 Can Categorial Analysis Be Worthwhile? Is The Theorem Really Third? JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18816 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18817 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18818 JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18819 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18821 HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18822 How To Read And Understand Peirce JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18823 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18839 Ben, List, The week before last my home office got tossed like a salad into the middle of our bedroom floor while workmen worked on various things that needed re-working. There's probably some metaphor of brute secondness there, I don't know. One of the unintended but beneficial (in the long run) side-effects of all that uproar in the Awbrey household is that books and notes and papers at the bottom of their respective categories of stacks all got flipped to the tops of their heaps with the causal consequence that I'm now re-acquainting myself with the unfinished business of of a decade or more ago. So it may be a while before I can manage to get any sort of concentration again. By way of interlusory comments then ... Earlier on I said a little on what I mean by charitable interpretation and just now I said a little less on how I understand critical interpretation. Before you can agree or disagree with someone you have to figure out what they are intending to say. That is the question that we have to ask here. I know most readers of Peirce have their pet correspondences among any budget of threesomes he happens to mention, and they all have their favorite snippets to support their choices. In 50 years of following these animadversions I have seen no total agreement among the various parties, though some do agree on some. My reading of Peirce himself over the years leaves me with no certainty on these scores and certainly nothing approaching the orders of axiomatic definitions and formal proofs that might privilege any one-to-one correspondence among trios that might be fixed and unique in all contexts for all intents and purposes and times. I find Peirce making suggestive correlations in various contexts of application and others in others. But when he is casting the most critical reflection on the correspondence of the moment I see him expressing a duly requisite doubt and then begging off with a conclusion more apology than logical proof. My first 10 years of reading Peirce were quite a struggle. I came to college as a math and physics major. I couldn't say Peirce is wholly responsible for my wandering years through fields and majors as diverse as communication and computer science to psychology and philosophy, but my efforts to understand what he was saying are decidedly one of the main forces that drove me back to graduate school, first mathematics, then adding psychology again along a parallel track, then more computer science and systems engineering as I worked to program a theorem prover for his logical graphs and then broadened that into my long-running work on Inquiry Driven Systems. But the way read his scientific work stabilized fairly well after that first decade, and I know have done little on this List over the last 10 years but rehash what I said during the first five. Regards, Jon On 5/10/2016 11:08 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > Jon A., > > In one of your replies you mentioned applying a little extra charity in reading > Peirce because the charity gets rewarded. So I thought that you might follow up > with remarks more specific. Now you seem to be making a vague generic defense of > disagreeing with Peirce, which is hardly necessary here, especially with me, and > offering word-cartoons about your interlocutors. Given that very vagueness, however, > and correct me if I'm wrong, I take you to mean, if not to be quite willing to say, > that Peirce did sometimes go too far in discussing the categories as if they were > non-relational essences, and that he should have stayed more explicitly focused on > tuples as in the early years. > > Best, Ben > > On 5/9/2016 3:45 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > >> Ben, Edwina, Gary R, Jon S, all, >> >> I'll post this back under one of the earlier subject lines >> in hopes of returning to it someday, and also to reign in >> the scope of discussion to what I can handle at present. >> >> I read Peirce primarily for his insights into logic, mathematics, >> and science, which are considerable enough for several lifetimes, >> and I read him the same way I read other thinkers in those areas. >> Maybe some people read Peirce as Charles the Revelator, applying >> the principles of scriptural interpretation and chasing his tale >> around hermeneutic circles in hopes of cornering a sublime truth. >> Scientific texts are read a different way. There we have a line >> between two kinds of statements, those that serve as conjectures, >> heuristics, or suggestions and those that are proved (or proven). >> >> (One of my math lists just went through a long, punny discussion >> as to whether proved or proven is preferable, so take your pick.) >> >> To be continued ... >> >> Jon >> On 5/10/2016 6:20 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > Peircers, > > I thought I had posted this message to the List last year but I > can't find a record of it in my Peirce List folder so maybe not. > > At any rate, this will indicate that I view Peirce's categories > as belonging to a long line of ideas that bear essentially the > same logical purpose, however radically they may vary in their > number and details. > > <QUOTE> > > Post : Survey of Precursors Of Category Theory • 1 > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/15/survey-of-precursors-of-category-theory-%e2%80%a2-1/ > Date : May 15, 2015 at 10:00 am > > A few years ago I began a sketch on the Precursors of Category Theory, aiming > to trace the continuities of the category concept from Aristotle, to Kant and > Peirce, through Hilbert and Ackermann, to contemporary mathematical practice. > This post is a Survey of previous blog and wiki notes on the subject, all of > it still very rough and incomplete, but perhaps a few will find it of use. > > Wiki Notes > ========== > > • Precursors of Category Theory > http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Precursors_of_Category_Theory > > Blog Posts > ========== > > • Notes On Categories > 1. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/02/22/notes-on-categories-1/ > > • Precursors Of Category Theory > 1. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/12/20/precursors-of-category-theory-1/ > 2. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/12/30/precursors-of-category-theory-2/ > 3. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/03/precursors-of-category-theory-3/ > > • Categories à la Peirce > • C.S. Peirce • A Guess at the Riddle > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/03/21/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-a-guess-at-the-riddle/ > > </QUOTE> > > I'll be using this material as background when I get back to > the current discussion of categories and types of inference. > We have of course discussed these topics many times before, > some of us more times than others. I also found several > blog posts associated with discussions we had last Fall > that may be especially pertinent to current business. > > • Peirce's Categories > 1. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/30/peirces-categories-%E2%80%A2-1/ > 2. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/31/peirces-categories-%E2%80%A2-2/ > 3. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/11/04/peirces-categories-%E2%80%A2-3/ > > On third thought, I think I'll switch back to that > title as better indicating the subject in question. > > Regards, > > Jon >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
