Jeremiah, Jeffrey D., list,
Jeremiah's paper was ill-starred, it seems. Jeremiah supplied Joe
Ransdell with a version that Joe put pretty much wholesale into html and
posted at Arisbe. Some symbolic expressions were formatted in this or
that font perhaps commonly installed in computers at the time but not in
recenter years, so they ended up coming out as gibberish. Joe and
Jeremiah didn't know.
Gilda Radner's character "Roseanne Roseannadanna" used to say "it's
always something" and "one thing leads to another." To this may be added
"the squeaky wheel gets the grease." For let it be told:
Jerry Chandler came along, tried to read the paper, and informed
Jeremiah about the problem. Jeremiah sent me a pessimistic email, but I
reformatted the paper, used the now-standardized markup for the needed
symbols, and removed tons of junk code in the process. By the way, the
primary source of junk code in webpages and emails seems to be Microsoft
Word (to avoid at least _/some/_ huge amounts of junk code, compose in
draft emails, not in Word)./
/
/_The squeaky wheel gets the grease./_ Reader, if you have a paper at
Arisbe and there's a problem with its markup, formatting, etc., TELL
ME. And if I end up putting work into it, I may become acquainted with
it and mention it in due context at peirce-l, as I did with Jeremiah's.
It's win-win.
Best, Ben
On 5/2/2014 7:19 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Jerry, List,
I've read your paper, it is quite a rich reconstruction of the detailed steps
of inference in the lectures--and of the overarching aim. Having said that,
your reconstruction is rich with suggestions. As such, I'll study it more
closely before offering any comments.
Thanks for reminding us that you've worked hard to tease out the details of
this remarkable rich argument.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
________________________________________
From: Jeremiah McCarthy [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:16 AM
To: P List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest
view + overarching view incl methodeutic)
Peirce-Listers:
Peirce claimed that there was a proof of pragmatism in the 1903 “Lectures on
Pragmatism.” For a detailed account of that proof, I would refer
Peirce-Listers to Jeremiah McCarthy’s 1990 paper, “An Account of Peirce’s Proof
of Pragmatism,” which is available at the Arisbe web site. The paper extracts
an actual proof – you know, all that premissy-conclusiony type stuff – which
discussions of Peirce’s proof seem to be allergic to. For some reason this
paper has been resolutely ignored in discussions of the proof of pragmatism. I
just about fainted in my chair when I read a reference to it by Ben Udell.
It’s the only one I’ve seen aside from references in Turrisi’s book, where she
gives it the brush-off. She seems to think that pragmatism is proved to be a
correct method for conceptual clarification when it can be shown to be part of
methodeutic. Well, the a priori method is part of methodeutic too, so I refute
her thus.
So, if anybody is really serious about understanding what Peirce had in mind as
the proof of pragmatism in 1903, he should start with my paper that has been
hanging around for years almost absolutely ignored. If you’re not serious
about the proof of pragmatism, just keep on talking and getting nowhere. As
for the existential graphs in connections with pragmatism and continuity, there
is a work on that, “Peirce's Logic of Continuity: A Conceptual and Mathematical
Approach” by Fernando Zalamea. This is a topic I didn’t touch on, since I had
no idea what Peirce thought he was doing with revisions of his proof after 1903
and was uncertain about how to handle the material in the supplementary seventh
lecture.
So color me very damned frustrated. Now I’ll shut up.
J. McCarthy
It is not the sleep of reason that produces monsters, but the fury thereof.
________________________________
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:17:54 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest
view + overarching view incl methodeutic
-----------------------------
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 .
