Hi Jon and list,
How about a test of our understanding? If there is one statement that can determine what is meant by Peirce’s theory of abduction, then is the following an over or under-determination? Is it exact and complete? Is it perfect? Why or why not? The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, then C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. (CP 5.189) Best, Jerry R On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Inquiry Blog: > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/04/04/definition-and-determination-11/ > > Peirce List: > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18569 > JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18598 > > Jeff, List, > > Let me go back to this point in the discussion and emphasize > a few points that appear to have gotten lost in what followed. > > I thought my first paragraph made it clear that I would be > focusing on “the meaning of determination as it figures in > Peirce's definition of a sign relation”. If I get a chance > to revise that second paragraph I'll add a word to reinforce > that focus, say, as follows: > > > Looking back over many previous discussions on the Peirce > > List, I think the most important and frequently missed point > > is that concepts like correspondence and determination in > > Peirce['s semiotics] refer to triadic forms of correspondence > > and determination, and that these do not reduce to the dyadic > > structures that are endemic to the more reductionist paradigms. > > Okay, I hope that much is clear now. > > By “Peirce's definition of a sign relation” I really mean the > select number of his best definitions, not mere descriptions, > the definitions that are strong enough to bear the load of > a consequential and consistent theory of sign relations. > > The best candidates I can think of in that regard > are the 2 variants from NEM 4, quoted on this page: > > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-on-the-definition-of-logic/ > > I'll have to break here as I've got plumbers coming to fix some pipes ... > > Regards, > > Jon > > > On 4/4/2016 9:40 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > >> Peircers, >> >> The subject of determination comes up from time to time. >> Here is a link to an assortment of excerpts I collected >> back when I was first trying to understand the meaning >> of determination as it figures in Peirce's definition >> of a sign relation. >> >> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/User:Jon_Awbrey/EXCERPTS >> >> Looking back over many previous discussions on the Peirce List, >> I think the most important and frequently missed point is that >> concepts like correspondence and determination in Peirce refer >> to triadic forms of correspondence and determination, and that >> these do not reduce to the dyadic structures that are endemic >> to the more reductionist paradigms. >> >> In this more general perspective, the family of concepts including >> correspondence, determination, law, relation, structure, and so on >> all fall under the notion of constraint. Constraint is present in >> a system to the extent that one set of choices is distinguished by >> some mark from a larger set of choices. That mark may distinguish >> the actual from the possible, the desired from the conceivable, or >> any number of other possibilities depending on the subject in view. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
