Hi Jerry C, list: you wrote:
"*"In particular, Parker’s separation of the logic of the semeiotic into:* *The logic of iconsThe logic of indicesThe logic of symbols.My questions are:* How do the nature of the propositional functions for the *“logic of icons”, the "logic of indices", and the "logic of symbols” * DIFFER? What is the distinction between these three terms such that each embraces a separate logic? In other words, what is the premise that generates the conclusion that the semiosis of ‘icon, index, symbol’ must necessarily be three clear and distinct logics?" ________ I've never read FS but if the question is *what is it that is being interpreted by two different interpreters for that which is claimed to be different but assumed to belong to the same whol*e, then you ought to consider the following from Strauss, Bloom and Benardete: "Long before I had even started on this study, my teacher, the late Leo Strauss, had started with incomparable clarity the chief them of these dialogues" ~Benardete, The Being of the Beautiful “To articulate the problem of cosmology means to answer the question of what philosophy is or what a philosopher is…stranger from Elea…discussed explicitly two kinds of men which are easily mistaken for the *philosopher*, the *sophist* and the *statesman*. By understanding sophistry (in its highest as well as in its lower meanings) and statesmanship, *one will understand what philosophy is*. Philosophy strives for knowledge of the whole.” ~Leo Strauss, What is Political Philosophy ________ “The Platonic dialogues do not present a doctrine; they prepare the way for philosophizing… The human world is characterized by the *distinction* between *speech* and *deed*, and we all recognize that in order to understand a man or what he says both aspects must be taken into account. Just as no action of a man can be interpreted without hearing what he says about it himself, no speech can be accepted on its face value without comparing it to the actions of its author. The understanding of the man and his speeches is a result of a *combination of the two perspectives*. Thrasymachus' blush is as important as any of his theoretical arguments. A student who has on his own *pieced together* the nature of the *rhetorician* on the basis of his *representation* in the Republic has grasped his nature with a sureness grounded on a perception of the *universal* seen through the *particular*. This is his own insight, and he knows it more authentically and surely than someone who has been given a definition. This joins the concreteness of *l’esprit de finesse* to the science of *I'esprit de geometrie*; it avoids the pitfalls of particularistic sensitivity, on the one hand, and abstractness on the other. *Poet and scientist become one*, for the talents of both are necessary to the attainment of the only end—the truth.” ~Allan Bloom ___________ one, two, three…icon, index, symbol…poet, scientist, philosopher...promise, performance, truth Other than immersing yourself in an inquiry that makes use of icon, index, symbol directly; if not this, which? Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > My distant memories tell me that I took up Parker's book in the hope of > finding there something essential & important about the concept of > continuity in CSP's work. I was quite disappointed in finding out that the > book was about continuity between the phases of theorizing in the writings > of CSP. > > > I’m not sure I’d agree with that. A lot of it is tied to Parker’s thesis > about Peirce’s fundamental ontological cosmology which is completely > wrapped up with his philosophy of continuity. All of part two deals with > Peirce’s mathematics of continuity - particularly as it relates to > infinities. That from pages 60 to 103. Again going by memory there are a > few places here in the discussion of Cantor that people disagrees with > Parker. Doing a quick Google search I found Jerome Havenel’s paper > “Peirce’s Clarifications of Continuity” which takes a few exceptions to > Parker. > > For example, in his interesting attempt to reconstruct The Continuity of > Peirce’s Thought, Parker states that “Peirce’s definition of the > continuum went through several revisions, but it always involved the notion > that there are no ultimate parts to a true continuum, and that > infinitesimals are real” (Parker, 1998, p. 23). This claim is not true and > it is misleading. Commenting on Parker’s claim, Tiercelin writes that “as a > result, the argumentative links Parker draws between the issues are very > often artificial” (Tiercelin, 1999, p. 218). > > > > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.473.9336&rep=rep1&type=pdf > > > This issue of the continuum and parts is still debated I believe. (Again > not a topic I’ve really followed of late so perhaps there’s more consensus) > Parker sees more consistency on the continuum in Peirce’s various phases. > Havenel and others tend to see Peirce as having more incompatible > positions. The main period of contention is 1884-1892 which some see as > marking a shift from a more Aristotelian phase of thinking about continuity. > > Admittedly a lot of Parker’s book reads like an introduction or overview > of Peirce. That is it’s not starting from the premise one already has the > basics of Peirce down. It’s also not a narrow book in that I think his > point is about how continuity ends up relating to most parts of Peirce’s > thought. Which as I recall still wasn’t quite as agreed upon before Parker. > > Of course I should note again that it’s been a long time since I last read > it. So my memory perhaps is a bit faulty. (I’m still embarrassed over that > Derrida/Lacan screwup) I’ll check it out again when I get home this > evening to see what I think. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
