John - I think we are talking about two different issues. No-one is arguing that our knowledge base (distributed cognition) is not developed within societal constraints and focus, but at the same time - to claim that our knowledge is ONLY societal and thus deductive and cannot be questioned, changed, explored by the individual human intellect and individual reasoning capacities and individual expriences - is to deny the function of abductive and inductive thought.
Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: John Collier To: Edwina Taborsky ; [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:27 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism, etc. Well, Edwina, I am not going to list specks of evidence, you need to read the literature. I got it primarily through studying distributed cognition, especially to teach it for several years in our cognitive science programme. Key words are distributed social knowledge, scaffolding, and bootstrapping. These all have technical meanings in distributed cognition, and I won’t try to explain them in an email list context; they require extensive study. John From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 15, 2014 10:09 PM To: John Collier; sb; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism, etc. John - I'd certainly like to see the empirical evidence that concludes that IF you write a document out rather than cut-and-paste it, THEN, you will understand it better. And I'd like to see the empirical evidence that IF you make mistakes when you are writing it out, THEN, these mistakes are not due to your own misunderstandings but are instead due to 'the dictates' of one's culture. I wasn't aware that we are merely shadows of a culture. I know that in totalitarian and fascist regimes, humans are expected to be just that; mimetic clones of an ideology - but in a free society, individuals are expected to operate with the capacity of their own reason, their own life experiences and their own capacity to reflect on and analyze their own individual actions. And the comment that Peirce incorrectly linked individuality with mistakes. Of course he did so; only the individual acts - either in error or correctly. And, I'd like to see evidence that the mistakes we make are 'a cultural issue'? Since when is our individual psyche, our individual psychological nature and personal nature/experience removed from all causality - and the causality of our mistakes in life are kicked off to 'culture'??? So - no-one is responsible for anything anymore; it's all due to 'our culture'. No - I don't accept these axioms. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: John Collier To: sb ; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism, etc. Stefan, List, That is indeed a good quote. It is on precisely that point that Putnam diverges from Peirce in his “brain in a vat” argument. He says “we determine meaning if anything does”. This leads him to his internal realism and rejection of metaphysical realism. I think that we can still keep metaphysical realism by not putting so much emphasis on only language making sense, as I argue in a 1990 article in Australasian Journal of Philosophy, but the argument is much easier if we just reject Putnam’s premise and follow Peirce. To Edwina: there is a lot of empirical evidence for Kirsti’s claims. I’ll take that ahead of your reasoning. No doubt you have pointed to small set of cases that don’t fit the general evidence, which is statistical. John From: sb [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 15, 2014 7:11 PM To: [email protected]; Kirsti Määttänen Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism, etc. Dear Kirsti, a CP-Quote i like very much: "Man makes the word, and the word means nothing which the man has not made it mean, and that only to some man. But since man can think only by means of words or other external symbols, these might turn round and say: ”You mean nothing which we have not taught you, and then only so far as you address some word as the interpretant of your thought.“ In fact, therefore, men and words reciprocally educate each other; each increase of a man‘s information involves and is involved by, a corresponding increase of a word’s information." CP 5.131 Best Stefan Am 15.11.14 17:30, schrieb Edwina Taborsky: Kirsti- you make a lot of assumptions, most of them without any empirical or objective evidence, and thus, one can only conclude that there are merely and only: your personal opinions. For example: 1) The cut-and-paste method of copying does not enable understanding while the handcopy method does enable understanding. Kirsti- there is no evidence of your assertion. Understanding what is in a document is not dependent on the method of copying that document. After all, the numerous scribes of the monasteries did not, when copying out texts, necessarily also understand them. 2) Mistakes in hand copying a document are due to the dictates of your culture and not merely personal blunders. Again, there is no evidence of such an assertion. First, you'd have to prove that such errors have nothing to do with personal blunders; and second, you'd have to prove that these errors are due to and only to: 'cultural dictates' - and third, you'd have to prove both the cultural mindset and how this 'forces' your hand. 3) You write: 'individuality (in the modern sense) he tied up with mistakes". I've no idea what you mean by 'the modern sense', but again, this is a personal assumption. The FACT is, that only the individual particular unit can ACT in time and space - whether that is a molecule, a cell or a human being. Collectives do not exist, per se, as discrete agents, in time and space. They operate in what is known as 'progressive' time or continuous time. 4) And you write 'mistakes we are prone' to make - and you assert that these mistakes are a 'cultural issue'. You provide, yet again, no evidence for your claim that essentially turns human beings into robotic clones of some Agential Culture. As is obvious, I disagree with your assertions. And no, my disagreement is not 'culturally conditioned'. It's my own reasoning. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kirsti Määttänen" <[email protected]> To: "Mary Libertin" <[email protected]>; "Peirce List'" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism, etc. Dear Mary, Thank you for the list of quotations from Collected Papers. -Most of those I have copied by hand, in handwriting, that is. Which is a part of my method in trying to get an exact, as good as possible undertanding of the writings in question. - Now CSP. Nowadays, people just copy and paste. Which is mechanical. - No understading needs to go along. With reading and writing it down, it just so happens that you make mistakes - Well, instead of just taking the mistakes as your personal blunders, uou also can look upon them as smoething dictated by your culture, and the dominant ways of it. CSP did draw attention to mistakes. Individuality (in the modern sense) he tied up with mistakes. - I have added to that mistakes we are prone to make. And need to notice. Which is acultural issue. - CSP had only a very vague undertanding of that. - if he had had, he would have maniged somewhat better, I think. Collected Papers, what a nuisance. - but as long as the chronological edition is laggig and lägging, it is all we have. - Well,we who do not have timelor oppotunitytot deciher Peirce's handewriring, The methio of observing ones own mistakes has to do with our culturally conditioned ways of understanding,. With best vishes, Kirwti - Peirce List' <[email protected]> Peirce List' <[email protected]> , personl Mary Libertin [[email protected]] kirjoitti: Kirsti, Your discussion is intriguing and so, at the point when you paraphrased Peirce and mentioned anyone could look up the quote in CP, I took on that role. Looking up "sand" in the Electronic edition of Peirce's CW I found the following and copied 12 paragraphs. I will attach them to this post for anyone else's use. I look forward to any ensuing discussion. Mary Libertin On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Kirsti Määttänen <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > Jerry, you partly miss my point, partly not. > > My ongoing work deals with the interrelations between culture, society, > groups and individuals. Triadic, diagammatical thinking is the tool I > use. > Well, an individual cell, mutatis mutandis, may be taken as something > very > similar to a human individual. As an individual, that is. Neither are > nothing, not even possible without continuity. CSP takes up the > Aristotelian distinction between *atomos* and *singular*, which ist to > be > noted and - in my view (I'n not certain about CSP) - taken as two > perspectives on the individual in question. > Life presupposes continuity. We are used to think that there is a > beginning and an end, which can be unequivocally marked on an abstract > time-line. Be it a cell or a human (or animal) individual. - Actually > that > is not the case. There is nothing clear about these, except human > markings, > with a date and time. These, as you said in your post I commented, are > not > very accurate. The time scale is what it is in each particular case. And > dependent on (human) observation rate. (Cf. time-series in longitudinal > studies.) > > CSP writes on continuity (at the time he was, to my mind, on the verge > of > rejecting both Aristotelicity and Kanticity as the basis for a sound > philosophy of continuity): We may break sand into smaller and smaller > pieces, but it does not bring back the continuity of the rock (or > stone). > This is cited on memory, thus not exact. But I suppose anyone can make > a > seach and find the exact quote. I think it appears in CP. Probably not > elsewhere in published writings. > > To note: I am not, nor do I intend to write on CSP, I take his core > ideas > and use them, experiment with them and thus develop them onwards. - > Just > as I think you are doing, Jerry, with your own work. > > It is a problem publishind CSP's Writings is so slow. > > As we all know, CSP was into ordinal arithmetics, not cardinal. - And > therein lies the basic difference between Cantor (etc) and CSP. CSP used > playing cards to demonstrate his ideas on ordinality. (For several > decades > I have started every single working day with taking up a pack of cards, > using them for experimentation.) > > In ordinal arithmetics, the crucial idea is that of a place (not number > in > the cardinal sense). > Well, then. In the beginning of Kaina Stoicheia CSP makes a triad (not a > tripartite fork, mind you) for mathematical thinking AS a methodical > order > (ordinality! as a methodical principle, and, simultaneously a principle > of > logic (in his broad sense). - It is about how you, or anyone, should > develop one's ideas in order to get somewhere. Whatever the aim and > topic. > (Still, mutatis mutandis.) > > I wrote extensively on this a couple of years back, with my slow read of > Kaina Stoicheia. > What, according to CSP, must come first, what second and what third. He > writes on the PROPER order in mathematics. - Then he just leaves math, > and > goes on to propositions etc. - In other words, there is a jump, a break > of > continuity in the (published) writing. > This gap needs to be bridged. But how? > > I have bridged the gap. - Well, anyone may disagree or agree just > according to his or her likings. The crucial thing is to test the > bridge, > to experiment in one's own field and thus to find out. > > The gap is about the relations between math and logic (philosophy, if > you > like). (Note that I am not using the word 'relationship'. That is for a > reason.) > Topical geometry is to be developed first, write CSP. - Historically, it > is not what he did. But logically, it is. > After that, comes perspectival geometry. And only after that comes > measuring et alia. Be it measuring time, or idividuals, or their parts > or > properties etc.. Also: numbering them. > All counting in the cardinal sense presupposes that one marks > individuals. > In geometry, it may mean marking a point on a line (or a surface etc.) > But in so doing, one breaks the continuity of the line (or surface > etc.). > This is the core of the conundrum of continuity. > CSP writes a couple of sentences on this. (After Kaina Stoicheia in > 1904, > I assume. But it makes no essential difference, whether such an idea was > presented by him earlier. - It sometimes happens that, with ongoing > work, > one gets a clear idea, and then gets all confused again. And later > understands the clear idea again, and one's work proceeds with rapid > steps.) > > To me, to all my knowledge and understanding, CSP never changed his view > on continuity about this: with marking a point, you loose continuity. > > Marking (or delineating, whatever) any individual, by any means, you > loose > (sight of) continuity. CSP writes, that it is OK to do so, IF it is done > deliberately, with a conscious decision. - Why so? - CSP does not tell. > (as > far as I know). > > I am not very much interested in the 'WHY' question. I have been > interested in WHAT to DO question. > > Here is what I think should be done to overcome the conundrum: > Continuity > must then be restored. > This has to do with perspectives. What you have lost with marking the > point (standing for whatever is at stake in whatever issue and case), is > a > perspective for continuity. > Deliberate change between perspectives is what is needed. But, in order > to > actually do what is needed (to proceed), you have to have the ablility > to > do so. Which means you have to practice your skills in doing so. > > What are mistakenly called visual illusions are a very good objects to > train oneself with. The famous duck/rabbit figure Wittgenstein talked > about. My claim that I can see both at once, and chance at will the > figure > I see, caused quite a stirr here on the list way back. Here in Finland > the > same has happened. Lots of indignation at such a presumptious claim have > arisen. With lots of responses and discussions missing the point at the > outset. > > Well, just a week ago a taught a friend and colleague to see the > stearcase, at will, as going up, going down and both simultaneously. It > took less than an hour. - My case of seeing duck, rabbit or both at > will, > proved to me it is definitely possible. The comments on the list, proved > to > me that people are not willing to accept the possibility. (According to > the > logic of possibilities, one case is enough for a possibility. For > getting > convinced, that takes more...) > Our minds, any human minds are in many, many ways culturally > conditioned. > The culture we are bourn into, educated to its ways etc, acts in many > ways > as our bootstrap. - As long as there is only one (basic) bootstrap > guiding > our mental vision, there is no way to the ability to change, at will, > the > most basic perspectives. - But that is, alas, what is needed in order to > understand both continuity and continuums. Though dealing with them, in > an > orderly manner, demands that you take up one at a time. > There is no problem with doing eg. all one's published work from one > perspective. If the perspective of continuity is also taken into > account, > in an orderly manner. Taking it seriously means learnig to understand > and > put up with vagueness. - But the alternative is confusion. Which is a > nasty > experience and does not lead anywhere. > We all are not just vehicles, but also tools for thinking. We must make > ourselves better tools, in order to do work that matters. CSP devoted > considerable hours, daily, to do just that. - It not only diagrams, just > as > well it is a question of learning to look at, of learning to see and > understand what one sees. > > And Jerry, mathematical statements (in a broad sense or in a restricted > sense?) may be viewed as philosophical statements. But not all do. At > least unless they are guided to so so. I have no doubt in that you > understand your mathematical statements simultaneously as philosophical > statements. I have no problem with that. > I myself, not having practiced my mathematical skills except in simplest > mathematics, when reading your papers and discussing them with you, am > able > to follow the philosophical side of your writings. And comment on them > also > on the basis of my simple, basic skills in math. > > But the basics never loose their relevance. They are most prone to get > in > a state of confusion when something truly new and revolutionary is being > accomplished. > > Best, > > Kirsti > > Jerry LR Chandler [[email protected]] kirjoitti: > >> List, Kirsti, Stephen: >> >> On Nov 11, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Kirsti Määttänen wrote: >> >> > That is the distinction between continuity and continuums. CSP's >> synechism is about the principle of continuity. Which is a >> philosophical >> statement (having to do with mathematics, but not a mathematical >> statement). >> > > > If anyone writes "continuity" and then changes into talking about >> continuum, that is something to be duly noticed. That is what I wish to >> say. There is a difference. >> > > Best, >> > > Kirsti >> >> An important post from the perspective of "Natural Propositions" >> >> Will you clarify your distinction? >> I am a bit discomforted by the implication that mathematical statements >> are not philosophical statement, although I agree that the relation >> between >> philosophy and mathematics is asymmetric, or, from my perspective, >> differential usages of grammars and meanings of symbols. >> >> I suspect that your intent is to distinguish the continuity of an >> object >> or process, inferring a temporal stability of one sort or another, a >> weak >> invariance. >> >> In this sense would you also like to imply the desire for a "what" and >> a >> "how" to place the meaning of continuity in a relative context? Or, am >> I >> missing the point? >> >> Stephen Rose's post appeared just as I was about to send this response >> His distinction is an important one. A continuity of a process can be >> restricted to a finite Cantorian interval of any duration. This is >> closely >> related to the principles of biosemiotics. >> >> An interesting example of the sort of conundrums that arise is with a >> small metabolite of a cell. In the dynamic processes of life, >> individual >> small molecules are created and consumed at very high rates. Or, they >> may >> only appear as a consequence of induction by exterior inducers and >> become a >> part of the continuity of the cell, but only as long as the external >> inducer is present. Remove the external inducer and the biosemiotics >> of >> the cell changes, and the metabolite is no longer part of the cell. >> (This >> is just a re-statement of the narratives constructed to describe the >> Lac >> operon in terms of both the continuity and dis-continuity of >> bio-semiotics >> in relation to the generative chemistry of life.) >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 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 . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
