Jon S., list,
I just remembered that Bernard Morand, now retired, of Institut
Universitaire de Technologie (France), Département Informatique, who
used to be quite active on peirce-l, wrote a book published in 2004
_Logique de la Conception: Figures de sémiotique générale d'après
Charles S. Peirce _ [Logic of Design: Illustrations of General Semiotic
After Charles S. Peirce]
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/pastbooks.htm#morand
<http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/pastbooks.htm#morand> .
In 2004 I had no idea that it was about design, I didn't know that the
French word _/conception/_ can simply mean "design." A few years ago I
got him to agree to translate into English its foreword which was
available gratis online. The English translation of the foreword is at
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/morand/conception-fwd.htm
<http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/morand/conception-fwd.htm>
.
He once provided us with this image of Peirce's diagram of the three
sign trichotomies:
http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/220287/2-2/moz-screenshot-1.jpg
which now adorns the top of the Peirce Blog http://csp3.blogspot.com/
In his 2004 book, he makes an argument for the ordering of the ten
sign-trichotomies as:
3-2-1-4-10-9-8-7-6-5
He discussed it at peirce-l in "Re: Symbol vs. iconized index"
2008-10-27 16:23:57
http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=2105468#2105468
Here's a diagram that I made showing his view:
http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/2111107/2/10ad3.GIF
Best, Ben
On 3/2/2017 1:24 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jon S, list,
In your Part 4 "Beyond Engineering", you wrote,
pronounced “rep-re-sen-TAY-men”
Happy to see the correct stress placement (as Peirce had it in the
Century Dictionary, and John Deely pushed for it too), but it'd be
even better if the "s" were a "z".
I'd guess that you'd count such "ruling arts" (their old label) as
design, architecture, community planning, — arts of governing, being
governed, and self-governing, — as parts of engineering (and other
productive sciences/arts such as medicine) in some broad sense.
A decade or more ago, I used to argue here at peirce-l that there's
difference between (A) will, decision-making, character, ethics,
etc., and (B) ability, carrying-out, competence, (and what I dubbed
"cheiromenics"), etc.; for example, we don't regard flaws of character
per se as flaws of competence per se, or vice versa (although for
example a character flaw such as recklessness can lead to needlessly
incompetent practice). Well, I got tired of arguing about it, obviously.
Anyway, I'd still regard design etc. as knowledge, or at least
conception, of forces, strengths, impetuses, whereby to decide things
or, at any rate, for things to get decided, as opposed to engineering
etc. as know-how, knowledge of means. Apparently, at one time design
was seen by many as simply the application of maths of optimization.
Engineering obviously involves the application of probability maths
and statistics, although in its design aspects it does get involved
with optimization.
What I'm saying is that design, architecture, community planning,
constitution-writing, education intending the building of character,
etc., don't seem to be simply aimed, as in the old formula, at "useful
+ beautiful", i.e., engineering with aesthetic art along for the ride
in an added sidecar.
The distinction seems parallel to that between two kinds of
decision-making itself (A) political (and martial) affairs
(decision-making in regard to decision-making, deciding who or what
gets to decide) and (B) economic, business, financial affairs
(decision-making as to means, resources, etc.).
I seem to remember that I broached this subject with you once before,
but I forget. I doubt that I'll convince any Peirceans that the
will-ability distinction is quite basic (they tend to be satisfied
with Peirce's trichotomy of will, feeling, and general conception),
still I'd draw your attention to the above distinction as worth
attention at some level, if not the most basic level, in your work and
meditation on the logic of ingenuity.
Best, Ben
On 3/1/2017 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
List:
Part 4, subtitled "Beyond Engineering," is now online at
http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107 . It discusses how /anyone /
can use the logic of ingenuity to imagine possibilities, assess
alternatives, and choose one of them to actualize. I have argued for
years that just as science is perceived as an especially systematic
way of /knowing/ , likewise engineering could be conceived as an
especially systematic way of /willing/ ; and if this is really the
case, then the distinctive reasoning process of engineers /should/ be
paradigmatic for other kinds of decision-making, including ethical
deliberation.
Regards,
Jon
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
List:
Part 3, subtitled "Engineering Reasoning," is now online at
http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10592
<http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10592> . It discusses how
engineers use the logic of ingenuity to simulate contingent
events with necessary reasoning. This is my attempt to explain
Peirce's whole notion of diagrammatic reasoning, using a variety
of quotes from his writings.
Regards,
Jon
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
List:
I meant to post this back around the first of the month, and
then kept forgetting to do so. Part 2, subtitled
"Engineering Analysis," is now online at
http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10490
<http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10490> . It discusses how
engineers use the logic of ingenuity to solve real problems
by analyzing fictitious ones. It mostly consists of quotes
from and comments on CP 3.559, which is part of Peirce's 1898
article in /Educational Review/ , "The Logic of Mathematics
in Relation to Education"
(http://www.pragmaticism.net/works/csp_ms/P00653.pdf
<http://www.pragmaticism.net/works/csp_ms/P00653.pdf> ). It
is the passage that opened up to me this whole understanding
of engineering thinking, when I first encountered it in the
volume edited by Matthew E. Moore, /Philosophy of
Mathematics: Selected Writings/ .
Regards,
Jon
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
wrote:
List:
In an effort to apply Peirce's thought to my profession
of engineering, as well as introduce it to my fellow
practitioners, I have written a four-part series of
articles under this heading for /STRUCTURE/ magazine.
Part 1, subtitled "Engineering Design," appears in the
September issue and is also posted online.
http://www.STRUCTUREmag.org/?p=10373
<http://www.STRUCTUREmag.org/?p=10373>
In summary, I am defining "the logic of ingenuity" as the
process of (abductively) creating a diagrammatic
representation of a problem and its proposed solution,
and then (deductively) working out the necessary
consequences, such that this serves as an adequate
substitute for (inductively) evaluating the actual
situation. This first installment discusses how
engineers use it to design particular artifacts for
specific purposes, and connects it with many of my
previous writings for the same publication.
Any and all feedback is welcome!
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://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 .
