|
Hi Jeff,
Good to hear contributions are growing. Of course I will be
happy to put the opportunity more front-and-center. I have not
checked since I last left a message on the project, but a short
Intro 101 to what you expect from the transcriptions would be
really helpful to new recruits.
I'd be happy to do a dedicated blog post on it as well. Are
there some notable quotables about benefits/usefulness that I
could reference? Also, is there a Robins listing or such for
what goodies might remain in the untranscribed archives?
Best, Mike
On 3/14/2018 12:08 PM, Jeffrey Brian
Downard wrote:
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 on FromThePage:
https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts
|
fromthepage.com
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 volunteer base.
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.
Yours,
Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
Hi Jon,
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.
Mike
On 2/12/2018 11:00 AM, Jon Alan
Schmidt wrote:
List:
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).
Regards,
|
