Jeff, list,
I'm only just getting started with MS 466, so not yet prepared to venture a guess where it belongs in the Lowell sequence. Given that Peirce wrote out most of the lectures a month or two before he delivered them, and changed his mind several times (as the early drafts of Lectures 1 and 3 show), it may not be possible to sort out what he actually used from what he didn't, and to determine where he used it. When I do my "edition" of Lecture 4, I'll just take my best guess at what he actually delivered, but also include some of the other MS material in 'appendices,' as I've done with Lecture 3. Eventually it will all be transcribed on the SPIN pages so people can decide for themselves, I hope. What makes the transcription challenging in many cases is that often the MS pages can't be read consecutively. In the third draft of Lowell 3, for instance, Peirce used only even page numbers, and wrote on only one side of the page in the notebook he was using. (I think he was probably leaving room for edits and insertions on the facing pages, although he often made revisions and insertions between the lines on the original page.) But then at some point he went back and started writing on the unnumbered pages, so that you end up with two continuous texts, but you can only read them continuously by reading every other page in the MS. In the edition I put on my website, of course - and in CP 1.521-544 - the continuous text is presented continuously (and most of it comes from the unnumbered pages in MS 464). Transcribing these manuscripts gives you a more intimate "feel" for Peirce's thought process than you get from the published versions - a different feel for his terminology too, as you watch him changing his mind by crossing out a word and substituting another, etc. He was always trying to get the exact word for his conception in its context, but as he was well and painfully aware, perfect exactitude in any natural language is an unattainable ideal. I see many interpreters of Peirce fixating on particular terms and virtually ignoring the immediate contexts of their use, in the rush to arrive at a summary understanding of his philosophy (or semeiotic or logic or categories or whatever). Personally I always get more out of reading and re-reading Peirce himself than reading interpretations of his work. Gary f. From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 4-Dec-17 19:52 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.1 Hi Gary F, List, Any thoughts about whether MS 466 belongs with Lecture 3 or 4. Robin suggests it might fit with either. For my money, I think it fits better with 3. In fact, the argument is just what I would expect to have found in the opening pages of "The Logic of Mathematics, an attempt to develop my categories from within"--but with many key points illustrated and argued using EG in the alpha and beta forms. None are expressed in the syntax of Gamma. On the last few pages, he makes a number of quite helpful points about our experience of objects having qualities, the character of the categories of quality and brute reaction with some off the cuff suggestions that indicate how these common observations and categories figure into the phenomenological theory and inform the semiotic inquiries. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 _____ From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 2:45:44 PM To: 'Peirce List' Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.1 List, Here begins my serialized posting of Peirce's third Lowell Lecture, given on Nov. 30, 1903. He began by answering a written question about Lecture 1, and then delivered much of what he had written for Lecture 2 about beta graphs, because he had for some reason been unable to give that part of Lecture 2 as scheduled. All this is explained in the website version of my transcription of the whole lecture, http://www.gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm, but I am skipping it here because it's already been covered in my previous postings of the Lowells. So I begin where Peirce makes the transition from existential graphs to Phenomenology, the main subject of Lecture 3. On the SPIN site, this manuscript page (with my transcription) is at https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-464-465-1903-low ell-lecture-iii-3rd-draught/display/13872. gary f. The beta part of the system of existential graphs is distinguished from the alpha-part by the presence of ligatures in its graphs; and it is therefore natural to think that the distinction between alpha-possibility and beta-possibility lies in the latter's taking account of the relation of identity. But it could easily be demonstrated that this is not the truth of the matter. The true distinction lies in the fact that beta possibility takes account of individuals, so that whereas in the alpha part all the spots are regarded simply as propositions and may be general, in the beta part, besides these, individuals which form an entirely different category, enter into the graphs. I now go on to a preface to the gamma part of the subject, which is by far the most important of the three, and which is distinguished by its taking account of abstractions. I begin by a remark drawn from Phenomenology. Phenomenology is the science which describes the different kinds of elements that are always present in the Phenomenon, meaning by the Phenomenon whatever is before the mind in any kind of thought, fancy, or cognition of any kind. Everything that you can possibly think involves three kinds of elements. Whence it follows that you cannot possibly think of any one of those elements in its purity. The most strenuous endeavors of thinking will leave your ideas somewhat confused. But I think I can help you to see that there are three kinds of elements, and to discern what they are like. I begin with that one which the rough and tumble of life renders most familiarly prominent. We are continually bumping up against hard fact. We expected one thing, or passively took it for granted, and had the image of it in our minds. But experience forces that idea into the background, and compels us to think quite differently. You get this kind of consciousness in some approach to purity when you put your shoulder against a door, and try to force it open. You have a sense of resistance and at the same time a sense of effort. There can be no resistance without effort: there can be no effort without resistance. They are only two ways of describing the same experience. It is a double consciousness. We become aware of ourself in becoming awaare of the not-self. The waking state is a consciousness of reaction; and as the consciousness itself is two-sided, so it has also two varieties; namely, action, where our modification of other things is more prominent than their reaction on us, and perception, where their effect on us is overwhelmingly greater than our effect on them. And this notion of being such as other things make us is such a prominent part of our life, that we conceive other things also to exist by virtue of their reactions against each other. The idea of other, of not, becomes a very pivot of thought. To this element I give the name of Secondness. http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm }{ Peirce's Lowell Lectures of 1903
----------------------------- 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 .
