Jeffrey, Thanks for that quote. It reinforces an impression I had formed and tried to express on several occasion under the heading of contemporary category theory and computer science jargon about “polymorphism”.
There is never anything simple about the development of Peirce's views over time so I think the whole issue of information deserves further research, as they say. BTW, is it really necessary to point out once again that the job of a lexicographer presenting a survey of significant usages in common or technical is very different from the role of a philosopher expounding his or her own conception? At dinner now so must be concise, but wanted to mark this theme for later remark. Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:14 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> > wrote: > > Hello Gary R, John S, Gary F, Jon A, List, > > > I take the following passage to indicate that Peirce changed his use of > "depth" and "breadth" in some respects some time between 1867 and 1896. The > change was a broadening of the use of both terms. > > > I restricted myself to terms, because at the time this chapter was first > written (1867), I had not remarked that the whole doctrine of breadth and > depth was equally applicable to propositions and to arguments. The breadth of > a proposition is the aggregate of possible states of things in which it is > true; the breadth of an argument is the aggregate of possible cases to which > it applies. The depth of a proposition is the total of fact which it asserts > of the state of things to which it is applied; the depth of an argument is > the importance of the conclusions which it draws. In fact, every proposition > and every argument can be regarded as a term.--1893. (CP 2.407 Fn P1 p 249) > > > I wonder if other changes are involved that were required by this broadening > in the meaning of both of these terms? > > > Given the fact that the classification of signs as terms, propositions and > arguments is based in 1903 on the relation between the sign and the > interpretant--and that he later grounded the distinction on the relation > between the sign and the final interpretant in particular--I tend to think > that Peirce is reforming the early explanations in a number of ways--but it > isn't obvious to me what might count as natural development or refinement of > the earlier position and what might count as a more dramatic shift in > position. > > The distinction between different classes of final interpretants as > emotional, energetic or logical should give us some reason to reconsider how > the conceptions of "breadth" and "depth" work in the context of the mature > semiotic theory. > > > --Jeff > > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > > > From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 2:24 PM > To: Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information' > > Gary F, Jon A, John, > > Gary F wrote that he holds that: "Peirce’s concept of information did NOT > change over the years, and that his usages of “breadth” and “depth” (for what > are now usually called “extension” and “intension”) in the early 1900s are no > different from his 1867 usages." > > I completely agree. Where is the evidence for your claim to the contrary, > Jon, by which I mean the present argumentation and citations to the late > Peirce on this? Then we might compare and contrast. > > I must admit that I too am getting somewhat impatient with your sending us > large numbers of links to your previous work, Jon. This is, after all, a > discussion forum. > > Gary F also remarked: "I admire John’s conciseness and would like to see more > of that from the rest of us on the list." > > It's hard to imagine that many folk in any discipline and participating in > any forum could be both as cogent and at the same time as concise as John > Sowa is (and always has been in my experience of now over almost two > decades). Examining the slides he recently provided us with--both the long > and short versions--is more evidence of that to my way of thinking--and, they > are visually concise as well. > > Still, "more of that" conciseness is surely a desideratum for those of us who > post to PEIRCE-L. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > C 745 > 718 482-5690 > >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:57 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: >> John, list, >> >> >> >> I think we all agree that Peirce’s concept of information has significant >> advantages over Shannon’s, for semiotic purposes. But in reference to his >> current monologue, Jon appears to be claiming that Peirce’s early (1866-7) >> concept of “information” is better (less “nominalistic”) than Peirce’s own >> later concept of information. >> >> >> >> But when I published my own paper on Peirce’s concept of information in >> 2010, http://gnusystems.ca/Rehabit.htm, I claimed that Peirce’s concept of >> information did NOT change over the years, and that his usages of “breadth” >> and “depth” (for what are now usually called “extension” and “intension”) in >> the early 1900s are no different from his 1867 usages. I have yet to see any >> reason to change my mind about that. So, Jon, I would very much like to your >> evidence for the difference you claim to see. >> >> >> >> But, please, don’t tell us that we can’t possibly understand your point >> unless we read most of your collected works. I’d like to see the evidence in >> the form of citations from late Peirce (since you’ve already given us those >> from 1866), along with your present remarks to the point, with a minimum of >> obfuscation, and without vague remarks about how badly other people >> interpret Peirce. >> >> >> >> Sorry if this sounds impatient, but I admire John’s conciseness and would >> like to see more of that from the rest of us on the list. >> >> >> >> Gary f. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] >> Sent: 28-Jun-17 16:16 >> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu >> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information' >> >> >> >> In my previous note, I forgot to check Peirce's own definition in the >> _Century Dictionary_. >> >> >> >> Whenever there is any debate about Peirce's use of a word, it's useful to >> check whether he happened to have defined that word in the _Century >> Dictionary_. Following is his word list: >> >> http://www.pragmaticism.net/peirce_cendict_wordlist.pdf >> >> >> >> Then look up that word and get a .JPG image of the page: >> >> http://www.global-language.com/CENTURY/ >> >> >> >> For the word 'information', I took the above steps and extracted his >> definition and quotations. See the attached information.jpg >> >> >> >> Note the emphasis on the method of communication or derivation. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
