Hi all,
Since the matter at hand is, “By “Peirce's definition of a sign relation” I really mean the select number of his *best* definitions, not mere descriptions…” ~Awbrey Which is better, the “2 variants from NEM 4” or CP 5.189? I determine it’s CP 5.189 *because*: “*Every inquiry whatsoever takes its rise in the observation, in one or another of the three Universes, of some surprising phenomenon*…” ~Neglected Argument and, “-*-here are three fingers --a little finger, a second finger, and a middle finger… Each of them equally appears a finger… And therefore, I said, as we might expect, there is nothing here which invites or excites intelligence…* *But is this equally true of the greatness and smallness of the fingers? Can sight adequately perceive them?... And must not the soul be perplexed at this intimation which the sense gives of a hard which is also soft? What, again, is the meaning of light and heavy, if that which is light is also heavy, and that which is heavy, light?”* ~*Republic* _____________ Therefore, CP 5.189 is the *best* definition that is “strong enough to bear the load of a consequential and consistent theory of sign relations”. But it’s really a matter of *if not this,* *which*? I hope that determines it. Jerry Rhee On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
