Jon A, Ben, List, Jon, you wrote: "Before you can agree or disagree with someone you have to figure out what they are intending to say."
I fully concur. So in line with this most excellent and, as I see it, really fundamental principle of an ethics of discussion, perhaps even of an ethics of inquiry, I'd like to ask you what you mean in writing the following: JA: My reading of Peirce himself over the years leaves me with no certainty on these scores [what JA referred to as 'threesomes' but which most of us here refer to as Peirce's three universal categories or, to use Peirce's technical term, the cenopythagorean categories] 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. Firstly, why in discussions of the categories--and of these as Peirce and others apply them to such matters as the classification of the sciences, phenomenoogy, semiotic, Peirce's attempt at a scientific metaphysics, etc.--should one expect anything approaching "axiomatic defintions" and "formal proofs"? Secondly, it would be helpful--and, imo, far more so than the typical long list of links you provide at the head of most every message you send to the list (15 in the message to which I'm responding to now), which list of links I personally find not at all useful in a discussion forum such as peirce-l--it would be exceedingly helpful in understanding what you are "intending to say" if *you* would provide some examples from Peirce's work where you see him "casting the most critical reflection on the correspondence of the moment" but then "expressing a duly requisite doubt and then begging off with a conclusion more apology than logical proof." Of course it would be especially helpful if, along with providing the list with such selected passages, that you'd also give reasons why you interpret him as "begging off with a conclusion more apology than logical proof," and, further, why you think a "logical proof" is required in those passages you chose as representative of him "casting the most critical reflection on the correspondence of the moment." Of course I have no idea which passages you have in mind, but for my own part I am content to find Peirce "casting the most critical reflection" on most any topic of scientific or philosophical interest, often in contexts where a "logical proof" is not only not required, but wouldn't even be to the point of that particular "critical reflection" as involving the categories. In addition, it would be extremely helpful towards understanding what you are "intending to say" in this matter of the categories if you would respond in some more of less definite way to Ben's comment: BU: 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. In a word, is Ben correct in taking this to be your meaning? Whether yea or nay, a bit of explication would also be helpful. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
