Jon, list, I often recommend close reading when examining the pragmatic maxim.
Perhaps no better example than to suggest it of #1 (CP 5.402), for there is something missing in your transcription and it makes all the difference. With best wishes, Jerry R On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > List: > > With respect to the comments below from both Kirsti and Gary F., as the > old joke goes, "I resemble that remark." I am definitely someone who > "often finds that the thought is changed by the act of writing it down," > and I generally spend a lot of time (probably too much; almost an hour just > on this post) formulating and reformulating my words accordingly. As > another variously attributed saying goes, "I write to find out what I > think." I hope it is always evident that my own positions on various > matters continue to evolve, and I greatly appreciate having this forum for > bouncing my tentative and sometimes misguided ideas about Peirce off those > of you who have been wrestling with the relevant issues far longer than I > have. > > Kirsti: > > Regarding the pragmatic maxim, as both Gary F. and Jon A. have pointed > out, Peirce offered more than two formulations. > > 1. Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical > bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our > conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. > (CP 5.402, EP 1:132; 1878) > 2. ... every theoretical judgment expressible in a sentence in the > indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose only meaning, if it has > any, lies in its tendency to enforce a corresponding practical maxim > expressible as a conditional sentence having its apodosis in the imperative > mood. (CP 5.18, EP 2:135; 1903) > 3. The entire intellectual purport of any symbol consists in the total > of all general modes of rational conduct which, conditionally upon all the > possible different circumstances and desires, would ensue upon the > acceptance of the symbol. (CP 5.438, EP 2:346; 1905) > 4. In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one > should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by > necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these > consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception. (CP 5.9; > c. 1905) > 5. ... the whole meaning of an intellectual predicate is that certain > kinds of events would happen, once in so often, in the course of > experience, under certain kinds of existential [conditions/circumstances]. > (CP 5.468, EP 2:402; 1907) > > #1 is certainly the First one, but Peirce quoted it upon offering both #2 > and #3 as different restatements of it; which of these were you identifying > as the Second one? Do you think that the other three shed any further > light on what Peirce had in mind? > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:23 PM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > >> Gary f., list, >> >> Your response presented as full an understanding of essential points in >> my post as I could ever hope. Even more, I was greatly and happily >> surprised. >> >> And yes, of course there are any formulations of the ideas conveyed by >> the two short expressions he gave a final stamp of his approval by >> explicitly NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The >> Pragmatic Maxim (in EP vol 2). (Note the cardinals!) >> >> He writes about them all the time, of course. In search of as good a >> linguistic expression as he was ever able to come up with. >> >> But, at a later date he takes up the First of these feeling a need for a >> Second, which does not (in any way) contradict with accepting the First, >> but taking it into a further stage, so to speak. >> >> I have not read your book, Gary. I do not read about Peirce, have not >> done so for centuries. Which, just as you write, gives much more weight and >> value to us both. >> >> If you see my point on ordinality and cardinality, it is very, very >> exceptional. Simplest math is most difficult for both philosophers and >> mathematicians to understand. There is this cultural aura around math which >> seems to make people bow there heads and kneel. Instead of approaching the >> questions at hand head on. >> >> I have always preached that it takes courage and guts to think properly >> and face the consequences of one's own thinking. >> >> I am very happy to have had the experience of feeling understood in my >> old age with some issues I've almost given up hope with. >> >> My sincere thanks to your, Gary f. >> >> Kirsti >> >> g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 14.2.2018 19:32: >> >>> Kirsti, >>> >>> I did give your post on ordinality and cardinality a second reading, >>> and I think I see your point, but I don’t have any particular >>> response to it, except to say that these logico-mathematical issues >>> are likely to arise again as we move on to Lowell Lectures 4 and 5, >>> where Peirce has much to say about “_multitude”_. >>> >>> I guess it’s time to start on Lowell 4, which I’ll do any day now >>> … my transcription is already up on my website, >>> http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell4.htm [1] . >>> >>> About Peirce’s formulations of the pragmatic maxim, I’m pretty >>> sure there are more than two in his writings, so it would help if you >>> would quote exactly the two that you refer to as the “first” and >>> “second.” Then we can look for a third. >>> >>> I think your new post makes a very important point when you say that >>> “the self to write down was the former self, not exactly the same as >>> the one(self) doing the writing down.” Or as I might put it, When >>> one decides to write down what one is thinking, one often finds that >>> the thought is changed by the act of writing it down. And it may >>> change again when you read what you’ve written. So, as you say, >>> “We all (hopefully) reformulate what we write during writing. Up >>> until it feels good enough. - Or should do so.” >>> >>> Some of us who post here usually do go through such a process. Others >>> are so eager to have their say that they usually hit “Send” >>> without even looking over what they’ve written. That’s one extreme >>> which tends to increase the quantity, and decrease the quality, of >>> posts on the list,— which makes many subscribers impatient. At the >>> other extreme are those who formulated their ‘positions’ years >>> ago, but never tire of repeating those same formulations or opinions, >>> usually in the context of agreeing or disagreeing with somebody >>> else’s formulation. That habit also increases the quantity, and >>> decreases the overall quality, of posts on the list, because it >>> usually generates repetitive “debates” instead of developing a >>> genuine _argument_ (in the full Peircean sense of that word). >>> >>> I think the ideal kind of post on the list is somewhere between those >>> two extremes. It’s the kind of post that has already gone through a >>> formulation and reformulation process, but takes the result of that >>> prior process as an “experiment,” and genuinely hopes to learn >>> something new from the result, i.e. from whatever response it gets. As >>> you say, “A living mind is continuously active, and any symbol lives >>> as long as [its] continuity gets created and recreated by new minds, >>> in new contexts.” For instance, I’ve said very similar things in >>> my book, but your statement is every bit as _original _as mine was, >>> because it was formulated based on _your_ experience and _your_ way of >>> using the language. Both of us have “recreated” the symbol by >>> reformulating it, “replicating” it in different ways, and thus >>> taken its expression a step or two further. That’s part of what I >>> call a genuine _argument_ (as opposed to a debate, which is a kind of >>> context between two fixed positions). It’s the sense in which Peirce >>> said that the Universe is “an argument”, “a vast representamen >>> … working out its conclusions in living realities” (EP2:193-4, CP >>> 5.119). >>> >>> I hope you don’t find this presumptuous. At least I can assure you >>> that it’s been formulated with some care, including careful >>> attention to your post. So if you think I got you wrong, I’d really >>> like to know that! >>> >>> Gary f. >>> >>> } Poetry is a search for the inexplicable. [Wallace Stevens] { >>> >>> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [2] }{ _Turning Signs_ gateway >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] >>> Sent: 14-Feb-18 08:14 >>> To: PEIRCE L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell >>> Lectures) >>> >>> List, >>> >>> First I wish to express my appreciation to Gary f., to his lead and >>> his commentaries on LL. - However, it seem to me that the discussions >>> tend to get muddled on certain very, very basic respects. >>> >>> Peirce's first formulation of the Pragmatic Maxims was about >>> "practical bearings". So it was about doing something, more >>> specifically it was about experimentation. Experimentation is about >>> doing systematical observations (with some stated, conscious rules, >>> mostly with non conscius habits of feeling). This applies to thought >>> experiments just as well. >>> >>> The second, later formulation of the Pragmatic Maxim is about >>> understanding and interpreting the ideas an thoughts mediated by >>> texts, diagrams (etc). >>> >>> But to my knowledge CSP did not write down a third, strictly worded >>> formulation of the Maxim. If there is one to be found, it must reside >>> in his very latest writings. >>> >>> However, he left a legacy on how to find and grasp the essence of The >>> Third. - To my mind Peircean phenomenology is the Turning Point. And >>> the key. >>> >>> Writing down or drawing down means making one's ideas observable, >>> objectifying them to be inspected. By oneself AND by others. But the >>> self to write down was the former self, not exactly the same as the >>> one(self) doing the writing down. >>> >>> Husserlian Phenomenology is all about knowledge and consciousness. >>> Nonconscious mind gets left out at the outset. (I have consulted >>> several experts on Husserl, as well as thoroughly inspected some of >>> his key writings.) I have good reasons to believe that Peirce resorted in >>> choosing (for some time) not to use the same term in order to avoid >>> confusing and muddling his phenomenology with that of Husserl. - >>> Hegel's Phenomenology he partly accepted, but definitely not Hegel's >>> Logic. >>> >>> We do have conscious control (deliberation) in starting to write down >>> our thoughts and ending it. But our minds are not simultaneously >>> starting or ending feeling and thinking. Not with the first nor with >>> last word (or line etc). >>> >>> A living mind is continuously active, and any symbol lives as long as >>> continuity gets created and recreated by new minds, in new contexts. >>> >>> Any act of writing down one's thoughts and ideas is an experiment. We >>> all (hopefully) reformulate what we write during writing. Up until it >>> feels good enough. - Or should do so. >>> >>> Peirce List is not supposed to be an arena for just opinions, in the >>> the sense: "This is my opinion, and as such it is just as good as >>> yours!". >>> - A have seen such a response in the List. - The majority in Peirce's >>> times voted him down, remember! >>> >>> This list is and should by all means remain an arena for >>> argumentation, not just expressing opinions. In philosophy and in >>> sciences (including human sciences, i.e. humanities) soundness of >>> grounds matters. >>> >>> When I was a little child my mother sometimes used to respond to us >>> children: "Auf dumme Fragen antworte ich nicht". I did not understand >>> the language, but in time I got the >>> message: There was something wrong with the question asked. The >>> question was stupid, unanswerable. >>> >>> Perhaps my interest in formulating questions, in relation with >>> possible answers, stems from these early, preschool times. >>> >>> I will leave below my earlier mail on ordinality and cardinality, >>> which, to my mind, deserves a second reading. The choice if of course >>> yours. >>> >>> By the time of the FIRST Maxim, CSP was concentrating on Signs, later >>> on (SECOND) he shifted towards Meaning, though not at all changing his >>> subject. Just changing the main, but not only perspective. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Kirsti Määttänen >>> >>> kirst...@saunalahti.fi kirjoitti 7.12.2017 11:57: >>> >>> John & Jon, >>>> >>> >>>> The two paragraphs offered by John to clarify the meaning of the verb >>> >>> 'to indentify' did not do the job for me. Quite the contrary. Many >>>> >>> questions arose. >>>> >>> >>>> JFS: "In mathematics, it is common practice to "identify" two >>>> >>> structures that are isomorphic. Some mathematicians call that >>>> >>> practice "abuse of notation" and insist on adding some annotations to >>> >>> the marks in order to distinguish the references. But most do not >>>> >>> bother to clutter their notations with such annotations." >>>> >>> >>>> Question: Which (variety of) notations do you mean? 2 = 2 and a = >>>> a ? >>> >>> Both can be read aloud as – equals – , OR – is identical with – . >>> >>> >>>> The mark remains the same, but there is change of meaning, depending >>>> >>> on the (mathematical) context. >>>> >>> With cardinals, 2 = 2 can be taken as equal and identical with 1+1 = >>> >>> 1+1. With a = a the situation is not that simple. >>>> >>> >>>> With ordinals this does not apply. As was shown by CSP in his >>>> >>> cyclical arithmetics. >>>> >>> >>>> Not only does "how many?" count, "how many times?" counts. (This is a >>> >>> joke, mind you). >>>> >>> >>>> Positions within multiple cycles begin to mean a lot. >>>> >>> >>>> Also zero becomes very interesting, indeed. >>>> >>> >>>> When zero was introduced (by arabic influence) to our number system, >>>> >>> it brought with it not only calculus, but also the arabic numbering >>>> >>> system. >>>> >>> >>>> Thus 000 = 000000 (etc.), but 10 and 100 and 1000 (etc.) make a huge >>> >>> difference. (As we all may, sorely or happily, know by looking at >>>> >>> one's bank accounts.) This is not as trivial as it may seem to some. >>> >>> Neither mathematically, nor logically. >>>> >>> >>>> The first zero, the second zero, the third zero … acquire a different >>> >>> meaning by their relative position in the chain of numbers. Which is >>> >>> not trivial, either. >>>> >>> >>>> Relational logic is needed. Which is just as complex (and perplex) >>>> >>> as CSP has shown it to be. >>>> >>> >>>> I have presented my thoughts as simply as I possibly can, but it does >>> >>> not follow that the thoughts are inherently simple. >>>> >>> >>>> With ordered chains of numbers (or other kindred marks) the problem of >>> >>> reversibility and irreversibility acquire a new acuity. >>>> >>> >>>> CPS deals with the problem a lot in Lowell Lectures. >>>> >>> >>>> I'll leave my second question on the meaning of identifying to a later >>> >>> date. >>>> >>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>> Kirsti Määttänen >>> >>> >>>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell4.htm >>> [2] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ >> >> > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
