[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
List: I have to say I'm deeply saddened by Arnold Shepperson's sudden death. In his memory, I have to say that I've learned a lot from his comments to the list and to a paper of mine we once exchanged. I'm sure lots of other people share this with we, and I say this because I am a teacher, and nothing is more to a teacher than the recognition of his students. So, I'd just wanted to remember that I've learned a lot from him. All the very best Cassiano. 2006/9/30, John Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: All,I have not been subscribed to the Peirce-L list since my universitychanged my email address to fit its corporate image. I was gettingreports regularly from my student Arnold Shepperson.I regret to inform you that Arnold died yesterday of a heart attack. It was a shock to me, since I saw him shortly before his death, andhe seemed fine, and very enthusiastic. It is a loss to me personally,but also, I think, to the wider world. Arnold was well on his way togiving a Peircean response to Arrow's paradox of social choice by rejecting Arrow's explicitly nominalist assumptions on ordering,using the idea of sequence instead, as found in Peirce.My best to everyone.John--Professor John Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South AfricaT: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
RE: the complaint below The messages of condolence were not accepted for distribution because of the repeated use of multiple masked identities on the list by a person or persons using "cispec" (or "cispeirce") as address, and bcause of the emanation of messages harassing the manager of PEIRCE-L from the same address. . As a point of list policy, it should be understood that it is NOT the use of a nom de plume (pseudonym) masking the identity of an individual person that is objectionable since there are sometimes legitimate reasons why a person would wish to participate in the discussion using a masked identity. Anyone doing so, however, should always use the same pseudonym so that, for purposes of discussion here, his or her contribution will carry with it the force of a consistent personal identity. This is important for the following reason. Whether two persons A and B agree or disagree is significant for discussional purposes here and the significance is based on the fact that it will be assumed by others that A and B are in fact two persons rather than one. When they are not, others on the list are misled logically by the false assumption, which means that the person who has pretended to multiple identities has practiced logically relevant deception as a participant here, and that is contrary to the purposes of the forum. Joseph Ransdell manager of PEIRCE-L - Original Message From: ALASE _Asociación Latinoamericana de Semiótica_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.eduSent: Sunday, October 8, 2006 12:28:45 AMSubject: [peirce-l] Death of Arnold SheppersonThe 30 October, 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent repeatedly to peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu a message of condolence for Arnold Shepperson's death (see below) that has not been diffused. We want to know the reason of that ignominy, Mr. list manager. Fecha: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:54:19 + (GMT) De: "Centro Interamericano de Semi¨tica" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Añadir a la Libreta de contactos Yahoo! DomainKeys confirm¨ que el mensaje fue enviado por yahoo.com.ar. Más info. Asunto: Death of Arnold Shepperson A: peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Arnold has been a brother for us. We are deeply aching. Cispeirce Preguntá. Respond¨. Descubr¨. Todo lo que quer¨as saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). Probalo ya! --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: What
Jeff Kasser (JK) says: JK: First, I'm not sure what sort of special relationship the two psychological laws in question need to bear to the method of tenacity. If they're in fact psychological (i.e. psychical) laws, then it would be unsurprising if the other methods of inquiry made important use of them. I thought that the only special connection between the laws and tenacity is that the method tries to deploy those laws simply and directly.REPLY (by JR = Joe Ransdell):JR: Peirce says, of the tenacious believer: ". . . if he only succeeds -- basing his method, as he does, on two fundamental psychological laws . . .". That seems to me plainly to be saying that the method of tenacity is based on two fundamental psychological laws. It would be odd for him to say "basing his method, like every other is based, on two psychological laws" in a passage in which he is explaining that method in particular. And if he wanted to say that this method is different from the others in that it applies these laws "simply and directly" whereas the others do not then I would expect him to say something to indicate what an indirect and complicated use of them would be like. Also, to say that use of such laws (whatever they may be) occurs in all four methods would contradict what he frequently says in the drafts of the essay and seems to think especially important there but which does not appear in the final version of the paper except in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", where it is not emphasized as being of special importance, namely, that in the fourth method the conclusions reached are different from what was held at the beginning of the inquiry. This is true in two ways. First, because in the fourth method one concludes to something from premises (the starting points) which are not identical to the conclusion with which the inquiry ends; and, second, because, sometimes, at least, the starting points of different inquirers in the same inquiring community in relation to the same question will be different because the initial observations which function as the basis for the conclusions ultimately drawn are different (as in the passage two or three pages from the end of "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" about investigation into the velocity of light.) Great weight is put upon that sort of convergence as at least frequently occurring in the use of the fourth method. Moreover, the third method is not one in which use of the two laws is characteristic since it depends upon a tendency for people to come to agreement in the course of discussion over some period of time though they do not agree initially. (There is no convergence toward truth but only toward agreement, since use of the third method in respect to the same question in diverse communities can result in the settlement of opinion by agreement in diverse communities which will, however, often leave the various communities is disagreement with one another about what they have severally come to internal agreement on. There is something of importance going on in his understanding of this particular point, Jeff, about the relationship of the starting points of inquiry to the conclusion of it that has to do with the logic of the movement from the first to the fourth method, as is evident in the draft material from 1872 in Writings 3, but is more difficult to discern in the final version where the discussion of the four methods is partially in the Ideas article as well as the Fixation article, which are really all of a piece. JK: Next, can you help me see more clearly how the passage you quote in support of your suggestion that Peirce has in mind laws concerning the properties of neural tissue, etc. is supposed to yield *two* psychological (in any sense of "psychological," since you rightly point out that idioscopic laws might be fair game at this point) laws? I don't love my interpretation and would like to find a way of reading Peirce as clearer and less sloppy about this issue. But I don't see how your reading leaves us with two laws that Peirce could have expected the reader to extract from the text. JR: I don't think he necessarily expected the readers to extract them from the text, Jeff, since it would not be necessary for his purposes there for the reader to do so. It is possible that in fact he did provide some explicit clues, at least, to what he had in mind in some draft version not yet generally available, but I don't find any place in what is in print (in Writings 3 and CP 7 in the section on the Logic of l873) where there is any explicit attempt at identifying them. It may only be a learned allusion to what someone of the time would be familiar with from the inquiries into psychological matters that were starting up around that time in Europe. If they pertained to the first method but not the fourth he would not have any logical need to make sure that the reader knew what he was alluding to, given that his aim in the paper was primarily to
[peirce-l] Re: What
Dear Joe and Jeff, I looked at some of the drafts in the Chronological edition Vol III page 33-34 --.Could it be thatthe laws he may be referring to are the law of association andsomething like a law of sensory impressions? Also I got the impression he may have intended these two laws to also operate in the fourth method of fixing belief but that the method of tenacity was distinquished by its being mostly limited to emphasizingthese laws. Peirce referring to the laws as fundamental makes me wonder if he views them as operating in all methods of fixing belief. That what distinguishes the other methods form the method of tenacity is that in fixing belief the other methodsemphasizemodes of beingin addition to one's personal feelings and associationsof ideas related to them.So -- the method of tenancity emphasizes the law of sensory impression (something akin to the directperception or the felt impression of similarity) and one's almost instantenous ideational associations, whereas the other methods place greater emphasis on the additional modes of will, reason (and ultimately in the fourth method) a balance of the lst three. It's hard for me to suppose that even someone using the lst method is absent all influence from secondness and thirdness (will, and representation). Or that methods other than tenacity exclude feelings. After all, each method is a matter of representation. Don't mean any of this in a contentious way. Just trying toraise a questionon the fly. I know I'm rehashing my earlier bit about combining the lst three to form the fourth, but in this case I'm doing so just to suggest how the law of association and of sensory impression (if there is such a law) might apply.Maybe I'm just being overlycommited to what I feel is the case--unwilling toacknowledge either fact or reason. JimPiat - Original Message - From: Joseph Ransdell To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 1:10 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What Jeff Kasser (JK) says:JK: First, I'm not sure what sort of special relationship the two psychological laws in question need to bear to the method of tenacity. If they're in fact psychological (i.e. psychical) laws, then it would be unsurprising if the other methods of inquiry made important use of them. I thought that the only special connection between the laws and tenacity is that the method tries to deploy those laws simply and directly.REPLY (by JR = Joe Ransdell):JR: Peirce says, of the tenacious believer: ". . . if he only succeeds -- basing his method, as he does, on two fundamental psychological laws . . .". That seems to me plainly to be saying that the method of tenacity is based on two fundamental psychological laws. It would be odd for him to say "basing his method, like every other is based, on two psychological laws" in a passage in which he is explaining that method in particular. And if he wanted to say that this method is different from the others in that it applies these laws "simply and directly" whereas the others do not then I would expect him to say something to indicate what an indirect and complicated use of them would be like. Also, to say that use of such laws (whatever they may be) occurs in all four methods would contradict what he frequently says in the drafts of the essay and seems to think especially important there but which does not appear in the final version of the paper except in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", where it is not emphasized as being of special importance, namely, that in the fourth method the conclusions reached are different from what was held at the beginning of the inquiry. This is true in two ways. First, because in the fourth method one concludes to something from premises (the starting points) which are not identical to the conclusion with which the inquiry ends; and, second, because, sometimes, at least, the starting points of different inquirers in the same inquiring community in relation to the same question will be different because the initial observations which function as the basis for the conclusions ultimately drawn are different (as in the passage two or three pages from the end of "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" about investigation into the velocity of light.) Great weight is put upon that sort of convergence as at least frequently occurring in the use of the fourth method. Moreover, the third method is not one in which use of the two laws is characteristic since it depends upon a tendency for people to come to agreement in the course of discussion over some period of time though they do not agree initially. (There is no convergence toward truth but only toward agreement, since use of the third method in respect to the same question in diverse communities can result in the settlement of opinion by agreement in diverse
