John, Jon Alen, list, I am not interested in what might be the final version Peirce wrote on the negation vs scroll isue. Even if John is right, the interesting point that remains is not the actual history of Peirce's thought, but the systematic problem it poses. It remainds me of Hempels confirmation paradox. Jon Alen arguing the Peirce did not fall pry to it and John that he did.
Jon Alen provided an interesting quote: CSP: I often think that we logicians are the most obtuse of men, and the most devoid of common sense. As soon as I saw that this strange rule, so foreign to the general idea of the System of Existential Graphs, could by no means be deduced from the other rules, nor from the general idea of the system, but has to be accepted, if at all, as an arbitrary first principle,--I ought to have poked myself, and should have asked myself if I had not been afflicted with the logician’s bêtise, What compels the adoption of this rule? The answer to that must have been that the interpretation requires it; and the inference of common sense from that answer would have been that the interpretation was too narrow. Yet I did not think of that until my operose method like that of a hydrographic surveyor sounding out a harbour, suddenly brought me up to the important truth that the verso of the sheet of Existential Graphs represents a universe of possibilities. This, taken in connection with other premisses led me back to the same conclusion to which my studies of Pragmatism had already brought me, the reality of some possibilities. (R 490:26-28, CP 4.581,1906) -- The interesting word being the emphasized interpretation. Jon Alen inserts in his comment 'of the scroll' just after interpretation. I do not know on what grounds. It can be read as 'the movement of thought' being different when thinking something in a scroll or a double negation form. The context, logicians devoid of common sense, seems to point to a perspective wider than the strict formal logical. John wrote: Familiarity does not imply agreement. The writings prior to June 1911 have some useful insights mixed with some obsolete material. It's necessary to evaluate them in terms of L231. -- At the very least it is not necessary to evaluate the issue in terms of L231. The dicision of what is obsolete or not must be based on a reality check and the context of his thought and experiences. Not on what is written last. Best, Auke > Op 22 augustus 2020 om 6:47 schreef "John F. Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>: > > > Jon AS, List > > This thread began with my note of August 2nd, which I include below in > the file 2aug20.txt. All the points in that note are based on the citations > included in it. But I changed the subject line of this note to emphasize > Peirce's fundamental insight of 2 June 1911 shortly after 7:40 pm. > > That was when Peirce finished writing two of his three "Illative > Permissions" in R669. He then wrote a short paragraph with a few lines at > the top of a new page. And he stopped. > > He did not write the third permission (about double negations), he left > most of the sheet blank, and he never resumed R669. Three questions: Why > did he stop when he had enough paper to write the third permission? Why did > he begin a completely new version of EGs in R670 with different notation and > terminology? And what did he do in the time between June 2 and June 7? > > My guess: He reviewed his earlier writings on EGs, especially the ones > from 1903 and 1906. The content of R670 and L231 shows what he rejected. > His comments in L378 and L376 show that he considered the presentation in > 1906 "as bad as it could be". But his comments in R670 show that he > considered some combination of shading with tinctured areas as possible. > That would be an option for Delta graphs, as I mentioned in an earlier note. > > JAS> understanding the entire system of EGs requires familiarity with all > his different writings about them. > > Familiarity does not imply agreement. The writings prior to June 1911 > have some useful insights mixed with some obsolete material. It's necessary > to evaluate them in terms of L231. > > JFS> There is no need to derive negation from anything else. > > JAS> Peirce repeatedly says otherwise, as I have repeatedly > demonstrated.. > > All those quotations are prior to June 1911. They're irrelevant and > obsolete. > > JAS> In R 669 (May 1911), he notes--just three weeks before composing RL > 231--that necessary reasoning is possible without the concept of falsity > > No, for several reasons: (1) That is not an exact quotation, since > Peirce knew that affirmation and negation are fundamental to every version of > logic from Aristotle onward. (2) Peirce had forgotten his 1884 point that all > reasoning can be done with just insertions and deletions (W 5:107). And > Peirce's discovery of 2 June 1911 makes the earlier quotations irrelevant. > > JAS> This (R 466:18-19, 1903) comes from one of Peirce's notebooks for > the Lowell Lectures, which in RL 376 (December 1911) he calls "the better > exposition" of EGs than "Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism" (1906). > The three primitives are thus consequence (scroll), coexistence (blank), and > identity (line) > > Although Peirce said that the version of 1903 was better than the version > of 1906, it still has obsolete passages, such as the comments about the > scroll. > > In R670, he writes "There are but three peculiar signs that the Syntax of > Existential Graphs absolutely requires." The first is the line of identity. > The, the second is the spot, which may be a medad or it may have one or more > pegs. "The third is one that shall deny a Graph instance, or scribed > assertion." With that explanation and further confirmation in L231, every > previous comment about scrolls is obsolete and irrelevant. > > At this point, I rest my case. I stand by the attached 2aug20.txt and > the additional comments above. Any relevant evidence to the contrary would > have to come from documents later than June 1911. > > 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe > PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
