Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14286
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14290
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14313
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14350
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14351
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14352
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14359
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14383
JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14388
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14394
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14409
Jerry, List,
Re:"CSP's rhetorical stance"
Somewhere in the classical part of my education I picked up the notion that
rhetoric is an inquiry into the forms of argument, discussion, and reasoning
that "consider the audience", in other words, that take the nurture and the
nature of the interpreter into account.
But considering the interpreter, putting the interpreter back into the process
of interpretation, is the very thing that sets Peirce's account of information,
inquiry, logic, signs, and pragmatic thinking in general apart from the run of
logical systems that had been developed to any significant technical degree up
to his time and even long after it.
The Horror! The Horror! A Spectre Is Haunting Logic — The Spectre Of Relativism!
Well, no, not really, but you'd think it from the ter-roar that dyad-in-the-wool
flatlanders raise at the very idea of moving logic into the 3rd dimension.
To be continued ...
Jon
Jon Awbrey wrote:
> Jerry, List,
>
> If we understand what Peirce is talking about then it's usually fairly
> easy to understand what he says, but it's almost impossible to
> understand what he says if we do not understand what he's talking about.
>
> That is not a paraphrase of the Meno paradox —
> it is only a clue to the role of collateral
> acquaintance in escaping the Meno paradox.
>
> I'll try address your questions more directly tomorrow ...
>
> Jon
>
>> Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>>> List, Jon:
>>>
>>> These are excellent questions! What do you think about these
>>> extentions?
>>>
>>> These questions penetrate to the heart of CSP's rhetorical stance as
>>> illustrated by the triadic triad:
>>>
>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign,
>>> icon, index, symbol,
>>> rhema, dicisign, argument.
>>>
>>> If these terms are to form a coherent pattern of inferences,
>>> is it necessary that the terms themselves, under different
>>> situations and constraints, be impure? (That is, have
>>> more than one qualitative or quantitative meaning?)
>>>
>>> Further questions about the purity of thought arise readily...
>>>
>>> In particular, does the concept of a decisign emerge because of the
>>> differences between pure and impure indices, such as the indices between
>>> chains and branched chains of inferences?
>>>
>>> On a technical note, often CSP's chains of inferences appear to start
>>> with Lavoisier's principle of purity which is necessary for all exact
>>> (pragmatic) logic of chemistry and molecular biology?
>>>
>>> Does Lavoisier's principle of purity have any influence on CSP's use
>>> of the terms, Pure Icon and Pure Index?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
