John S, Jon S, List,
Peirce seems to use the term "image" in at least two senses. First he uses the term in the common way to talk about what one sees when one opens one's eyes and perceives what is before you--or when a person closes her eyes and imagines what she hopes to see in the future. In the case of what one actually perceives and what a person imagines, there is some kind of image that is part of the the perceiving and imagining. Compare this common way of talking about images with the more technical definitions he offers in the account of "imaging." There is an image involved in this type of mathematical activity, but it would appear that the more formal features of the image matter more than the more material features. (CP 3.609-10) Does every diagram involve an image in one or both of these senses? One might think that the mathematical sense of imaging and image is a limited to mathematical activities, but it seems clear that Peirce is attempting to provide an explanation of certain German words, such as Bild, that were important in Kant's discussion of perception and cognition in the 1st Critique. As such, I take him to making more general points about the formal conditions involved in "projecting" from diagrams in perception, imagination, or in mathematical reasoning from more formal diagrams. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________________________________ From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:33 PM To: John F Sowa Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.3 John S., List: JFS: I would say that every diagram is an image ... Peirce explicitly said otherwise in CP 2.277, dividing hypoicons into images, diagrams, and metaphors. JFS: But there has never been a sharp distinction between science and engineering. Maybe not in fact, but certainly in perception. My comments about this in the article were intentionally somewhat polemic. Regards, 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> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:22 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 9/27/2017 5:07 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: A diagram, in Peirce's terminology, is not an image; it is an icon, with indexical and symbolic elements, that embodies the significant relations among the parts of its object. An algebraic equation is a diagram just as much as a geometric figure. I agree with some of the points in this passage, but I disagree with the first one. I would say that every diagram is an image, but it may be a composite image that contains components that are interpreted as iconic, indexical, or symbolic. An algebraic equation is a diagram that people may draw on paper or contemplate as a mental image. Chess players who go beyond an elementary level can contemplate mental diagrams that represent the chess board. They can play a blindfold game and win against chess players with lesser skills who can see the complete board in front of them. The diagrams in a chess player's mind are images with both iconic and symbolic aspects. The image of the board is iconic. But the images of the pieces become more abstract symbols. I touched on how ethical reasoning can also be diagrammatic --referencing this very lecture as helpfully summarized by Daniel Campos... Thanks for the reference. I found a free copy at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289706934_The_Role_of_Diagrammatic_Reasoning_in_Ethical_Deliberation the last installment of my recent series of articles on "The Logic of Ingenuity" (http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107). That's also a good article. But there has never been a sharp distinction between science and engineering. Even Aristotle claimed that knowledge from praxis and theoria are both important for metaphysics. Peirce would certainly agree. In the 19th century, the British Royal Society was limited to "gentlemen" who were sufficiently wealthy that they did not have to earn a living from their studies. There was a lot of prejudice against Faraday, but he eventually became FRS. John
----------------------------- 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 .
