Jerry R wrote: "So, what now of beans and bags? p's and q's, even..."
Jerry, I can't, of course, be certain exactly what your
not-quite-a-question is or even the basic intent if it, but at first blush
it appears philosophically naive, especially when considered from the
Peircean perspective.
Peirce's outline "Classification of Sciences"--which I won't even begin to
try to summarize here--would suggest that several levels of analysis are
being attempted in this and related threads. For example, Jon S. and I (and
others) have been discussing the "beans and bags" matter from the
standpoint of *critical logic* ("logic as logic") in Peirce's
classification. Here we clearly have some significant disagreement as to
the direction which rule/case/result take in consideration of the inference
patterns: deduction, induction, but most especially, abduction.
At the next level in Peirce's classification of logic as semiotic, namely,
what Peirce sometimes calls *methodeutic* (but also philosophical or
theoretical or semeiotic) *rhetoric*, concerned in large part with how best
to conduct a scientific inquiry, the three inference patterns (already
treated in critical logic) are now considered in the context of a "complete
inquiry." They follow the order: first, abduction (hypothesis), then, the
deduction of the hypothesis's implications in the interest of devising a
test of it, and finally, the actual inductive testing of the hypothesis.
Jon and I (and I think many here) appear to be in agreement that this is
pretty much how scientific inquiry is best conducted.
As to the most recent discussion of abduction as it might relate not only
to science but to the arts, Jon, Gary F, and I have momentarily at least
moved the discussion rather far from logic as semeiotic, even into an
entirely different branch of science, *applied science*, and perhaps even
beyond that to how the findings of science might relate to the fine arts.
As I see it, all these moves are legitimate, while to conflate work in one
area (say, critical logic, your "beans and bags") with an entirely
different area (recently, abduction in relation to the fine arts), seems to
me to entirely miss the divisions of the classification of sciences (and
what their findings might suggest beyond science proper). Equally
importantly, it misses how they might--and do--influence each other, give
guidance to each other, provide examples and cases for each other, etc.
Best,
Gary R
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, what now of beans and bags? p's and q's, even...
>
> Best,
> Jerry R
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Gary F, Jon S, List,
>>
>> Gary F. wrote: "maybe [artists] are driven to think this way by an
>> irrational urge to create, to do something that hasn’t been done before, or
>> show us something we haven’t seen before …
>>
>> Or even, perhaps, to show *themselves* that they can do something
>> previously not imagined. For example, the concert I mentioned I was
>> attending at Carnegie Hall and which featured Mozart's *Great Mass in
>> C-minor* was held as the companion to a show at the new Breuer branch of
>> The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, "Unfinshed: Thoughts Left Visible"
>> which asks the question "when is a work finished?" or, in some case, "why
>> did an artist leave a work seemingly unfinished?"
>> http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2016/unfinished
>>
>> Between the two 'unfinished' works on the Carnegie concert was a panel on
>> the topic including the curators of the MMA show, the conductor of the
>> concert, Leon Botstein (who is also the President of Bard College), and a
>> music historian on the staff of the MMA. During the panel discussion it was
>> noted that much of the text of this mass was not set to music by Mozart,
>> and yet what he did set is totally satisfying in a concert setting. Indeed,
>> if Mozart had composed music using *all *the traditionally set text of
>> the mass that it would be probably be grander in scale than even Bach's
>> *B-minor
>> Mass* or Beethoven's *Missa Solemnis*. Yet what he did set was
>> strikingly original, the arias and ensemble pieces complex and virtuosic in
>> the style of Mozart's late Italian operas, while the choruses 'reinvent'
>> the older contrapuntal style (at the time of composing the mass he had
>> recently 'discovered' and was studying Bach and Handel) making something
>> completely new--and very Mozartian--of it.
>>
>> Well, the long and short of it is that the immense time and effort that
>> must have gone into writing it at the dimensions at which it is composed
>> far exceeded anything 'necessary' for Mozart to do (its composition was
>> prompted by a vow he'd made to his wife) especially given the fact that
>> Mozart had virtually nothing financial to gain from writing it. It was also
>> mentioned in the panel discussion that the last three symphonies he wrote
>> were similarly not commissioned, seemingly inspired by a need to take the
>> symphonic form further than he--or, at that point, anyone--had taken it.
>>
>> Similarly, the MMA show, 'Unfinished', also includes a number of works
>> seemingly written because the artist was "driven . . . by an irrational
>> urge to create, to do something that hasn’t been done before." Much of
>> this work was kept by the artists in their studios and never publicly shown.
>>
>> It is well known that Peirce argues that only abduction offers anything
>> new or fresh in scientific inquiry. I think that it is this originating
>> power of abduction which has helped bring about some of the greatest
>> innovations in science and creations of art, music, architecture,
>> literature, etc.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>>
>> [image: Gary Richmond]
>>
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>> *C 745*
>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:03 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon A.S. proposes
>>>
>>> that both inquiry and ingenuity are motivated more fundamentally by
>>> dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. And this could apply to artistic creation as well: the artist
>>> looks out at what’s been done in his or her field and thinks “There must be
>>> more to it than this!” or perhaps “I can do better than that.” But maybe
>>> they are driven to think this way by an irrational urge to create, to do
>>> something that hasn’t been done before, or show us something we haven’t
>>> seen before …
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary f.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> *Sent:* 15-May-16 21:30
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary F., List:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your points are well-taken, especially given my thinking on the "logic
>>> of ingenuity" as employed by engineers--where there is a cycle of
>>> abduction/deduction/induction (analysis) nested within another (design).
>>> And like artistic creation, engineering does not (usually) begin with the
>>> observation of a surprising fact. What I have posited is that both inquiry
>>> and ingenuity are motivated more fundamentally by dissatisfaction with the
>>> current state of affairs--doubt in one case, which is resolved by attaining
>>> a state of belief; and uncertainty in the other, which is resolved by
>>> attaining a state of decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>>>
>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>>>
>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> 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 .
