Kirsti, List: KM: Just as well as a continuous line (in CSP's view) doesn not consist of points, it does not consist of segments, continuous or not so. A truly continuous line cannot be segmented without breaking the very continuity you are trying to capture. - It presents just the same geometrical problem as do points.
You are correct, "segment" was probably a poor choice of word on my part. KM: You seem to be captured (along with nominalistic ways of thinking) by the notion of individual as ATOMOS (cf. Aristotle). What specific "nominalistic ways of thinking" do you detect in my posts? How would you define an "individual" from a Peircean standpoint? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:04 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > Jon S. > > Not only is continuity the most difficult problem for philosophy to > handle, it is also the most difficult problem for mathematics to handle. > > Taking into consideration the view of CSP that we always have to start > with math, then proceed to phenomenology, and only after this try to handle > logic (in the broad sense or in ny more restricted sense), it follows that > some (not yet definable) mathematical ideas should be developed. - Such may > not as yet exist! > > Viewing Moore's collection of mathematical writings of CSP & his > introductions there seems to prevail a basic misunderstanding of the > relation between continua and continuity. > > Just as well as a continuous line (in CSP's view) doesn not consist of > points, it does not consist of segments, continuous or not so. > > A truly continuous line cannot be segmented without breaking the very > continuity you are trying to capture. - It presents just the same > geometrical problem as do points. > > One has to start with (geometrical) topology. A topic SCP says so little > about e.g. in Kaina Stoicheia. - He only states that it must come first. > And followed by perspective, and only after these any kinds of measuring. > > But what kind of topology? - And how and why the simplest math must come > before phenomenology & be followed by (a special kind of) phenomenology? > > Definitely not Husserlian, according to CSP. > > But there are grounds in the writings of CSP to assume that Hegelian > dialectics, with the three moments, are not such a far catch. > > You seem to be captured (along with nominalistic ways of thinking) by the > notion of individual as ATOMOS (cf. Aristotle). > > True continuity involves time. (And vice versa: time involves continuity.) > They are like RECTO and VERSO in CSP's Existential Graphs. > > Or a jacket with a lining. Most jackets do have a separable inside cloth > but even if it is taken away, there always remains a RECTO and VERSO. As > well as both taken together: the jacket! > > With this there comes triadicity. > > Keen to hear your response, > > Kirsti
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
