On 8 Nov. 1913, Peirce summarized his final position on EGs, and it is
identical to his 1911 EGs. Nobody has shown any evidence for any other
opinion, no matter what their purpose may be.
Case
closed.
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
I agree strongly with John Sowa in his last message.
In my book, Dark Matter of the Mind: The Culturally Articulated Unconscious, I
discuss points related to these at length. Our bodies are constantly
registering experiences in ways that we may not be aware of, “apperceptionally”
in William Ja
; *Til: *Robert Marty
> *Cc: *Auke van Breemen , Cornelis de Waal <
> cdw...@iupui.edu>, Gary Richmond , Jon Alan
> Schmidt , Peirce List ,
> "ahti-veikko.pietari...@taltech.ee" , "
> francesco.belluc...@unibo.it" , "
> martin.irv...@georgetown.edu"
&g
rv...@georgetown.edu"
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Existential Graphs in 1911
Robert,
Thanks for finding that quotation:
> Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our
> sensations” (CP 5.395)
Now that you mention it, I recall reading that some time ago. It must ha
Robert,
Thanks for finding that quotation:
> Thought is
a thread of melody running through the succession of our sensations (CP
5.395)
Now that you mention it, I recall reading that some
time ago. It must have been lurking somewhere in my mind, but well
beneath the conscious level.
In any cas
Bill,
Your comment is very close to what I was trying to
say.
> I have been a musician for seventy years, and I was a
serious
mathematician until age twenty. (I graduated with a double degree.) I
can assure you that I dont think only in terms of the patterns . . .
In fact, in my most treasur
John, Auke, List, All:
JFS: He [Peirce] insisted that metaphysics should be based on mathematics,
not on Hegel-style verbiage.
Actually, he insisted that *all *other sciences are ultimately based on
mathematics, while metaphysics in particular should be based on logic--the
entire normative scien
John, List, All:
JFS: Any logician can "hear" an exciting new melody in R670 and L231 that
was not present in R669 or the Monist article of 1906. Peirce didn't have
to write a "note to self" about the change. He just did it. And any
logician can "hear" it.
But I realize that many people can't f
Auke, List, All:
AvB: For him [Peirce], as far as I understood his thought, the formal
structure is not everything. It only is "the formal structure as it
operates in a living intelligence". It did not prevent him from focussing
exclusively on the formal structure, as his formal work shows. But he
Hmm. You seem to be defining 'thinking' as only an act of abstract
intellectual analysis.
But Peircean 'thinking' includes non-analytic feeling [Firstness] as
well as direct physical experience [Secondness] and also, that
abstract analytic process [Thirdness].
Edwina
O
Hello, everyone,
There seems to be a lot of crossfire here. Perhaps I can create a diversionary
skirmish . . .
"A mathematician or a musician thinks only in terms of the patterns, the
operations on those patterns, and their relationship to whatever notation is
used to represent them.”
Okay, w
John,
Let's take the sequence from the architecture of science: math. logic,
phenomenology, semiotics, critical logic, ... , methaphysics. You assume that
my remarks concern the interval logic ... methaphysics. That however was not
the object of my remarks. My remarks concerned the interval ph
Peirce often uses the musical metaphor ...
Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our
sensations” (CP 5.395)
Le sam. 30 janv. 2021 à 04:39, John F. Sowa a écrit :
> Gary R,
>
> My remarks were ad rem, not ad hominem. Mathematics is like music. A
> mathematician or
Gary R,
My remarks were ad rem, not ad hominem. Mathematics is
like music. A mathematician or a musician thinks only in terms of the
patterns, the operations on those patterns, and their relationship to
whatever notation is used to represent them.
The words used to
describe those patterns a
John Sowa wrote:
JFS: Jon's method of focusing on the words is a kind of literary criticism
that would be more appropriate for analyzing Shakespeare than Peirce.
I found this comment as useless and, frankly, as absurd as this earlier one
of yours in this thread.
JFS: As for Jon's comments abou
Auke,
I agree with your observation, and the conclusion: "It
is a line of thought I can see leading to what Jon
wrote."
Charles' father Benjamin Peirce gave him a thorough
training in mathematics from early childhood, and Charles devoured
Whateley's logic book in a week when he was 13. He insi
John,
During your repeated debates with Jon an experience I had as a freshman
philosophy kept knocking at my doors of perception. It was the first meeting in
which each of the students had to read a passage of Hegels logic. I was the
first to read and started with the first alinea in which logi
Auke> I was thinking in terms of goals, i.e. what is the object you
try to understand, not credentials. I can connect Jon's answer to my
question with his line of reasoning and I did like that. There might
be differences in the goals and then it is always better to asses and
value the differenc
John,
I was thinking in terms of goals, i.e. what is the object you try to
understand, not credentials. I can connect Jon's answer to my question with his
line of reasoning and I did like that. Their might be differences in the goals
and then it is always better to asses and value the differen
Auke> Since perspective is important, it might be a good idea to
explicate the differences in purpose each of you entertain.
That's
a good question.
I have been working on research and teaching in
logic, computer science, artificial intelligence and related areas for
many years. In the 1970s,
John, Auke, List, All:
JFS: The *opinion* that the EG version of June 1911 is Peirce's best is
Peirce's own, as he stated in December, after six months of further
consideration.
This is false, Peirce states no such thing. Here is the entire relevant
portion of the referenced letter.
CSP: This s
From the list perspective:
Jas wrote:
I have said it before, I will say it again--we have different purposes, so we
reach different conclusions.
--
Since perspective is important, it might be a good idea to explicate the
differences in purpose each of you entertain.
best,
Auke
> Op 24 janu
Jon AS, List,
The *opinion* that the EG version of June 1911 is
Peirce's best is Peirce's own, as he stated in December, after six months
of further consideration. The fact that he stated it in a lengthy letter
to a member of Lady Welby's significs group is further evidence of its
importance.
John, List, All:
JFS: Again, you have not cited any statements by Peirce after June 1911.
Therefore, nothing in your note contradicts the evidence that the 1911
version of EGs is Peirce's best and last available version.
That it is his *last *version is a fact, as far as we know. That it is
his
Jon, List,
Again, you have not cited any statements by Peirce
after June 1911. Therefore, nothing in your note contradicts the evidence
that the 1911 version of EGs is Peirce's best and last available
version.
Furthermore, Peirce's letters of Sept. and Dec. 1911
explicitly reject the version of
Jon AS,
All your citations are prior to R670, which demotes the
scroll to nothing but a way of drawing two ovals (negations) without
raising the pen.
In R670, Peirce states the three primitives:
existence, conjunction, and negation. And in L231, he drops the adjective
'illative' in front of t
List, All:
For the benefit of those on the cc: line who are not List members, here is
a link to my entire post to which John Sowa was replying.
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-01/msg2.html
In addition, here are links to an earlier exchange between us, in which I
provided seve
Jon AS, List,
For anyone who is not familiar with Peirce's 1911
EGs, see my
introduction to EGs, which is based on the 1911 version.
The first
10 slides are sufficient for an overview. The remaining
slides show
features of the 1911 EGs that make a major advance over
the logics
of the 20th cen
List:
In light of the following statements by John Sowa last month, I decided to
take a fresh look at R 669-670, including both the online digital images (
https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/home.php) and the
transcriptions published by Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen in 2014 (
https://www.res
29 matches
Mail list logo
