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
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14422
JLRC: 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?)
Jerry, List,
There is something that needs to be said about the proper use of categories and
classifications in Peirce's work and what I regard as their mis-use in a great
number of contemporary discussions.
One of the first issues I can remember pointing out when I joined the Peirce
List was the distinction between "triadicities" and "trichotomies", the first
relating to properties of triadic relations and the second relating to mutually
exclusive and exhaustive partitions of a domain. Although one can form what is
known in mathematics as a "projective" relation between the two structures, the
trichotomies remain pale reflections of the richer triadicities, distorting and
reducing much of their information. Trying to comprehend triadic relations by
means of their projective trichotomies is a project ultimately doomed to fail.
To be continued ...
Jon
Jon Awbrey wrote:
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 .
