Jerry,
Reviewing the many tangents of the last week --
I can't really think of anything better than
to repeat the advice that I gave below.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/13/2016 5:01 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
Jon, list:
I should have been more moderate in my response.
Given:
The surprising fact, C, is observed.
But if A were true, C would be a matter of course.
Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true.
where,
C = icon, Peirce’s theory of abduction, semiotic or pragmatism,
where pragmatism is “nothing else than the logic of abduction”,
and
A = index, “2 variants from NEM 4” *or* CP 5.189.
then,
My inference to the best explanation is CP 5.189 over NEM4 *because*
is perceptual judgment, which is valued by spiritedness. But this
at stake; whether we have the right to say whether perceptual judgment
is what ought to be valued in abduction in the first place. This is
decided as a matter of social principles because esthetics.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote:
“*Whether this be a correct account of the matter or not…that all
conceptions must be given substantially in perception, three objections
will be started. Namely, in the first place, it may be said that even if
this be the normative form of abduction, the form to which abduction ought
to conform*…”
~ CP 5.189, EP 2, p.231
Jon,
my point here is to show that to determine the goodness of what a good
definition of abduction should consist in, we need to determine the class
membership of what C (Peirce's theory of abduction, semiotic) should entail
at the outset. You do this in your response; that you are after the
“bare essentials of Peirce’s semiotics”. But all you’re after is already
considered and contained in CP 5.189, in one, two, three..C, A, B.
Importantly, perceptual judgment is part of abduction, it ought to be,
regardless of whether you accuse it of being pithy or not. If you
dismiss this part, you dismiss a major aspect of Peirce’s pragmaticism
because ethics depends on esthetics and logic on ethics; "spiritedness
privileged over appetite as the ally of reason” (paraphrased from Moss
and others, c.f., *Republic*).
As for its “pith”, why do you think I promote examining phi spiral
abduction where the icon, index and symbol is stated explicitly?
It is precisely in anticipation of criticisms of “pith”. It is an
example that contains responses and imaginations to questions at its limit
for *all who investigate* before they even start but I’m supposed to
defend why it’s beyond your comprehension, too. Why it isn't a matter of
genuine doubt to you because I can't make you see why this perception is
relevant. So, you walk away and it’s my fault. So goes the world…
Best,
Jerry R
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
Inquiry Blog:
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/04/04/definition-and-determination-11/
Peirce List:
•• http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18569
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18634
JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18635
JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18636
Jerry, List,
For now I'm just focused on the bare essentials of Peirce's semiotics,
specifically, the minimally adequate definition of a sign relation as
it figures into Peirce's definition of logic along with the necessary
concepts of triple correspondence and triadic determination on which
all the rest depends.
To Wit:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-on-the-definition-of-logic/
It would take a while to get from there to his full theory of inquiry,
involving the interplay of abductive, deductive, and inductive styles
of inference, but first things first, as they say.
Just as a side note, though, I'm sure every writer who ever attempted
to introduce a complex subject to a new audience has tried the tactic
of seeking out the simplest possible capsule summary of its main gist.
The pithy epitome of abduction you cite below is a perfect example of
just such a capsule and I have seen vast literatures in several areas
spring from its pith and moment only to have their currents turn awry
from its oversimpletonations. Let's not get addicted to this capsule!
A better idea of the rich interplay among the three styles of reasoning
and how they work in tandem to reinforce one another in genuine inquiry
may be had from the study I carried out back when I was working to view
Peirce's theories of inference, information, and inquiry from a systems
analysis perspective on a systems engineering platform.
Functional Logic : Inquiry and Analogy
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Functional_Logic_:_Inquiry_and_Analogy
Regards,
Jon
On 4/12/2016 4:48 PM, Jerry Rhee 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/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
-----------------------------
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 .
