Hello Mike, List,
I was searching online for some information about the Peirce manuscripts and
came across your website with information about how those who are new to the
scene might get started reading Peirce. At one point, you describe an ongoing
transcription project that is using crowdsourcing, and I am supposing that you
are referring to the SPIN project. As you probably know from the Peirce-L
discussions, I am directing that effort with Terry Moore.
In a footnote, you say the following: "I could post the links here, but the
editors in charge of these transcription efforts are naturally desirous to
maintain quality and keep participation manageable. However, if you are
seriously into Peirce, it is quite informative to contribute to the process. If
you think you’d like to contribute, do some searching on transcribe and Peirce
to find these projects on your own, or contact me directly for sources."
In fact, the SPIN project is now up and running in what might be called "phase
one of implementation," and we'd like to encourage any and all who might be
interested to join the transcription efforts. As such, we'd appreciate it if
you (and others) would share links to the SPIN project through your webpage and
any other contacts you might have. Having tried to recruit volunteers via the
Peirce-L , conference presentations, and other online resources, the project
has grown from a handful of participants to more than 45. Some volunteers have
taken on the task of transcribing entire lectures or drafts of essays, and we
are especially appreciative of their heroic efforts. Having said that, we'd
love to have hundreds of volunteers joining in the efforts--even if some only
transcribe a page or two. As they say, many hands make for light work.
In order to get started, volunteers can read the transcription guidelines and
then watch the short video that explains how to make transcriptions. The
process is pretty simply for transcribing text, and there are more detailed
instructions for those willing to take on the challenge of encoding logical
formulas and diagrams. See the links in opening remarks for the SPIN collection
C. S. Peirce Manuscripts |
C. S. Peirce Manuscripts - collection overview. The goal of the Scalable Peirce
Interpretation Network (SPIN) is to develop a model environment for distributed
collaboration that can support an international network of researchers,
students, and citizen scholars in cooperative efforts to encode and interpret
handwritten manuscripts, including those of high complexity. As our testbed, we
plan to use the "Logic Notebook" that Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of
Pragmatism, kept as the seedbed and greenhouse for his ideas together with
related sets of manuscripts in logic and semiotics. We are treating the pages
in the MS 145 folder as a sandbox. Take the platform for a test run and play
with the toolset. The enhanced set of LaTeX tools for encoding the algebraic
formulas and graphical diagrams have been added, and a set of guidelines for
making the encodings is ready to go. Here are links to Transcription Guidelines
on the SPIN Project website, digital images of the Ma
In the future, when we have sufficient support and funding, we plan to create
an instance on Zooniverse. The directors of that large and ongoing project have
agreed to let us use a project instance to recruit volunteers to the SPIN site.
Given the fact that Zooniverse has over a million volunteers engaged in citizen
science and scholarship, we see this as a significant opportunity to grow our
We have partnered with a number of groups, including the PEP and the
Transkribus/READ projects. As such, we are exploring innovative ways to support
the transcription efforts of a large community of volunteers and are also
looking at downstream uses of the transcriptions for the sake of assisting the
editors of the PEP with their aims of creating a 30 volume set of Chronological
Writings--and also support other editors and scholars who might have interests
in specific texts or writings on specific topics. If you have any questions,
let me know.
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Aristotle and Peirce
Excellent quote; thanks, Jon. I had not seen (recalled?) it before, and it
offers another example of Peirce's universal categories, plus is the clearest
statement I have seen yet of Peirce's definition of nominalism v realism.
On 2/12/2018 11:00 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
As the chief culprit for the recent glut of messages--apparently I was the
sender of more than one-third of the 200+ over the first 11 days of February--I
offer my sincere apology, and my promise to try to temper my enthusiasm for the
current discussion topics, or at least "pace myself" (as the saying goes) in
responding. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly off-List if you
think that I am getting out of hand again.
I am replying in this thread only because I believe that the following excerpt
provides a direct answer to Stephen R.'s question about whether Peirce
classified Aristotle as a nominalist.
CSP: Aristotle held that Matter and Form were the only elements of experience.
But he had an obscure conception of what he calls entelechy, which I take to be
a groping for the recognition of a third element which I find clearly in
experience. Indeed it is by far the most overt of the three. It was this that
caused Aristotle to overlook it ... Aristotle, so far as he is a nominalist,
and he may, I think, be described as a nominalist with vague intimations of
realism, endeavors to express the universe in terms of Matter and Form alone
... It may be remarked that if, as I hold, there are three categories, Form,
Matter, and Entelechy, then there will naturally be seven schools of
philosophy; that which recognizes Form alone, that which recognizes Form and
Matter alone, that which recognizes Matter alone (these being the three kinds
of nominalism); that which recognizes Matter and Entelechy alone; that which
recognizes Entelechy alone (which seems to me what a perfectly consistent
Hegelianism would be); that which recognizes Entelechy and Form alone (these
last three being the kinds of imperfect realism); and finally the true
philosophy which recognizes Form, Matter, and Entelechy. (NEM 4:294-295; c.
1903?, emphasis added)
This is part of a lengthy passage where, as I have remarked in other recent
threads, Peirce explicitly associated Form with 1ns (quality or suchness),
Matter with 2ns (the subject of a fact), and Entelechy with 3ns (that which
brings together Matter and Form; i.e., Signs).
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Stephen C. Rose
173. But fallibilism cannot be appreciated in anything like its true
significancy until evolution has been considered. This is what the world has
been most thinking of for the last forty years -- though old enough is the
general idea itself. Aristotle's philosophy, that dominated the world for so
many ages and still in great measure tyrannizes over the thoughts of butchers
and bakers that never heard of him -- is but a metaphysical evolutionism.
Peirce: CP 1.174 Cross-Ref:††
Interesting. Has anyone done a study of Peirce and Aristotle. In what did
Peirce's alleged tyranny consist? This is in something I found in an old book
I have but it is also in CP. Did classify Aristotle as a dualist or nominalist?
Or more narrowly as here?
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