John, You wrote: Maybe. But these are issues for which we could benefit from more easily accessible resources -- such as well organized and cross referenced transcriptions of all of Peirce's MSS. It would also be useful to have all of the MSS cross linked to everything that any and all Peirce scholars have written about any or all the MSS. John
When a student I bought a reproduction on a second hand market for the picture frame only. Since I did not have a fitting image, I decided to keep the image, that was and still is in very bad state. After some weeks I knew the image would stay for an indefinite time period. Pictured are three women, each with a bible. In the middle an intensely, close reading older woman, to her left a young lady keeping the book at a distance, as if reading very critical. To her right a middle aged woman that looks away from the book into the world, as if checking what has been said. I am of the opinion that every serious text deserves all three kinds of reading. Filling in gaps tentatively due to inaccessible manuscripts offers a chance to check our understanding at some future time, as well of the text as of the object the text tries to understand. As one may ask whether the ladies primarily want to understand the immediate object (the bible book) or the dynamical object, one may ask the same question with the work of Peirce. I am quite sure Peirce felt rationally necessitated to be of the opinion that it is not allowed to favor his suggestions after they pop up only on the basis that they are written by him. The goal, uncovering the dynamical object, in the interrogative mode on all suggestions, carefully considering all accessible facts concerning the objects, utilizing the social possibilities the community of investigators offers on the subject, will determine the conclusions in the end. Best, Auke -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] Verzonden: maandag 1 januari 2018 5:14 Aan: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic Jerry and Auke, In the Worlds article, my primary goal was to convince readers that a definition of modality in terms of laws and facts is more fruitful than a definition in terms of possible worlds. The final paragraph of that article summarizes what I was trying to show. (See below.) What Peirce himself said about modality and his Gamma graphs is fragmentary, and I don't claim to know what he would have said in answer to your questions. JLRC > Can you provide the names of the four subdivisions of the universe of > actualities? Since Peirce didn't attach any names to those subdivisions, I won't attempt to do so. Don Roberts reproduced Peirce's diagram on p. 94 of his book on existential graphs. But he doesn't name them either. But by analogy with the labels Peirce assigned to the subdivisions of possibilities and necessities, I would guess that the 3rd and 4th subdivisions of actualities would represent something actual with respect to an observer or to some other person. Peirce may have had some ideas in mind, but hadn't made a final decision. AvB > I would say... Maybe. But these are issues for which we could benefit from more easily accessible resources -- such as well organized and cross referenced transcriptions of all of Peirce's MSS. It would also be useful to have all of the MSS cross linked to everything that any and all Peirce scholars have written about any or all the MSS. John ____________________________________________________________________ From the final paragraph of http://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf The combination of semiotics with Dunn's semantics of laws and facts provides a theoretical foundation for modality and intentionality that captures more of the intended interpretation than a undefinable relation R over an undefined set W. An important promise of this combination is the ability to support multimodal reasoning as a kind of metalevel reasoning about the source of the laws and facts. Instead of complex axioms for each mode with even more complex interactions between modes, it enables the laws to be partitioned in a hierarchy that represents grades of necessity or levels of entrenchment: logical, physical, economic, legal, social, cultural, or personal (Sowa 2003). Exploring the full implications of Peirce's semiotics is far beyond the scope of this article, but the outline presented here suggests a wealth of resources waiting to be developed. --- Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG. http://www.avg.com
----------------------------- 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 .
