Gary f, List, You concluded:
Gf: To me, the importance of Peircean thinking today appears not so much in the laboratory as in the relations we live by every day, i.e. the subject matter of *cenoscopy* — for which, as he said, no special equipment is required, just a willingness to ask deep questions and try to work out answers to them. My own particular interests have moved almost fully to the cenoscopic part of Peirce's thinking which, as you put it, concerns itself with "the relations we live by every day" for which "no special equipment is required." I think that this is why Peirce suggested, for example, that a central feature of his Methodeutic, viz., Pragmatism, was but a science-oriented variety of Critical Common-Sensism, a practice which all thoughtful people, not just scientists, ought adopt: CSP: [I]f we are to admit that some propositions are beyond our powers of doubt, we must not admit any specified proposition to be of this nature without severe criticism; nor must any man assume with no better reason than because he cannot doubt it, that another man cannot do so. EP 2:433 Still, as I recently wrote in another thread, I see no reason why the more theoretical and the more practical aspects of Peirce's work should not be taken up by those individuals and communities of interest with perhaps different interests and, likely, very different abilities. After all, Peirce most certainly meant for the principles discovered in Cenoscopic (Science of Discovery, or, Theoretical Science) to be capable of being usefully applied to the Special Sciences, both physical and psychic; and, perhaps in a homely way, even to the Practical Arts and Sciences. It seems to me that good work applying such principles is today being done in several of the Special Sciences and I would hope that this would increase over time. (However, I think it would be helpful, if not quasi-essential for the purposes of this list, that the Peircean principles seen as being employed in any given special or applied science be as clearly defined and explicitly analyzed as possible: hinting at, 'dropping' or 'plopping down' a *perceived *connection is, at least, insufficient and, at most, misleading in my opinion). But, as I earlier wrote, however Peirce is being applied in the laboratory or in particular special sciences (or will be), it is my belief that there is considerable work yet to be done in cenoscopic science, and my personal interests currently lie there (although not exclusively as I'm a bit of a generalist). Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:22 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry C, > > You’re right that my perspective on the role of chemistry in Peirce’s work > has changed quite a lot since a decade ago — but then, so have many other > ideas I had about Peirce then. I daresay my ideas even about the ‘basic > framework’ of his philosophy are still changing as I read and re-read more > of his work. > > I do think he meant the word “bedrock” in his title as a metaphor, but I > also think that he found the object of that metaphor less “solid” than he > hoped it would be when he started that 1908 essay, and that’s why he left > it unfinished. To me, though, it’s no less interesting to follow his train > of thought in these drafts than to follow it through his more finished and > famous essays. > > I’d like to quote here one more text that offers a clue to Peirce’s > feelings about *organic* chemistry at the time he wrote it (1906). It’s > an excerpt from “PAP”, MS 293 (NEM 4:313-30), one of Peirce’s drafts for > his “Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism.” > > [[ What, in a general way, does the Diagram of Existential Graphs > represent the mode of structure of the Phaneron to be like? The question > calls for a comparison, and in answering it a little flight of fancy will > be in order. It represents the structure of the Phaneron to be quite like > that of a chemical compound. In the imagined representation of the Phaneron > (for we shall not, as yet, undertake actually to construct such a Graph), > in place of the ordinary spots, which are Graphs not represented as > compound, we shall have Instances of the absolutely Indecomposable Elements > of the Phaneron (supposing it has any ultimate constituents, which, of > course, remains to be seen, until we come to the question of their Matter; > and as long as we are, as at present, discoursing only of their possible > Forms, their being may be presumed), which [are] close enough analogues of > the Atoms in the Chemical Graph of “Rational Formula.” Each Elementary > Graph, like each chemical element, has its definite Valency,—the number of > Pegs on the periphery of its Instance,—and the Lines of Identity (which > never branch) will be quite analogous to the chemical bonds. This is > resemblance enough. It is true that in Existential Graphs we have the Cuts, > to which nothing in the chemical Graph corresponds. Not yet, at any rate. > We are now just beginning to rend away the veil that has hitherto > enshrouded the constitution of the proteid bodies; but whatever I may > conjecture as to those vast supermolecules, some containing fifteen > thousand molecules, whether it seems probable on chemical grounds, or not, > that they contain groups of opposite polarity from the residues outside > those groups, and whether or not similar polar submolecules appear within > the complex inorganic acids, it is certainly too early to take those into > account in helping the exposition of the constitution of the phaneron. Were > such ideas as solid as they are, in fact, vaporous, they ought to be laid > aside until we have first thoroughly learned all the lessons of that > analogy between the constitution of the phaneron and that of chemical > bodies which consists in both the one and the other being composed of > elements of definite valency. ]] > > In our time, of course, “the veil that has hitherto enshrouded the > constitution of the proteid bodies” has long gone, thanks to advances in > microscopy, so that research into “the proteome” and the various functions > of various proteins within the body seems to be overtaking genetic research > at the cutting edge of the biological sciences. Peirce would have been very > interested in this, I’m sure, but I’m equally sure it would not serve his > *phaneroscopic* (or logical) purposes at all, any more than his > phaneroscopy has any direct applications in such specialized sciences. To > me, the importance of Peircean thinking today appears not so much in the > laboratory as in the relations we live by every day, i.e. the subject > matter of *cenoscopy* — for which, as he said, no special equipment is > required, just a willingness to ask deep questions and try to work out > answers to them. > > Gary f. > > > > > > *From:* Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 31-Mar-19 22:40 > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic > > > > GaryF., List: > > > > Thank you for your comments and perspectives. > > Your perspective on the role of chemistry in CSP writings has changed in > the past decade, has it not? > > > > Next, a comment on a critical historical facet of chemistry. > > Inorganic chemistry developed from mining, smelting, coinage, weaponry, > etc. > > Organic chemistry developed from food preservation, fermentation, > dyestuffs and natural healing agents and the like. > > Relatively little cross-over between the two practices because of > different ends and different methods. > > Conceptually, inorganic chemistry became the study of transformations by > fire and heat, acids, bases and salts as electrical combinations of cations > and anions that combined by pairings. > > Organic chemistry was defined in terms of Life and destruction of organics > by heat and fire to form acids bases and salts. > > > > In both forms, the nature of chemical transformations was largely > unfathomable. Mysterious. How this did “this” become “that”? > > This mystery remains in public mindset yet today, does it not? > > > > WRT the term, medad, it seems that CSP used the term in a grammatical > sense in respect to the completeness of a sentence, in logical terms in the > sense of completeness of propositions, in a chemical sense with regard to > the inert gases and in a different chemical sense with regard to > completeness or saturation of hypothetical valences. Context appears to > determine the desired meaning. > > > > With regard to your sentences: > > > > In that post, was not trying to say anything about the chemical sciences > as they exist today; and Peirce himself was not trying to inform his > readers about chemical science when he adopted the “valency” analogy to > construct a hypothesis about the elements of the phaneron. This thread is > about phaneroscopy, and about Peirce’s development of *that* science. > When I use the term “chemistry” in this thread, I am referring to the > universe of discourse from which Peirce drew the concept of valency — which > was, of course, the chemical science *of his time*. > > my only comment is to wish you luck for the following reasons. > > > > CSP’s knowledge of math, physics, chemistry, logic, philosophy and > languages are intermingled and interbraided and interlaced and intermixed > in such ways that I am skeptical that we will be able to untangle them. Was > he justified in creating so many new words? Probably. But, without > comparable knowledge of late 19 th Century math, physics, chemistry, logic, > philosophy and languages, each reader searches for an interpretation that > fits their individual philosophy. Will anyone ever recreate the linguistic > space that he created and mined and extended and bastardized? At least > that’s my opinion this evening because it is now clear that several related > symbol systems and logics are needed to make manifest the exact > representation of things as forms and/or as information about things. > > > > With regard to the Bedrock paper, why did CSP use this word, “bedrock”? > Is it merely a metaphor? Or, is it an analogy for sensible connects between > the terminology of organic chemistry and his notions of existential > graphs? Clearly, it is not homologous usages of organic terms between then > and now. > > > > I remain very grateful for your transcription of this paper because it > substantially clarifies the underlying roles of chemistry in his logic > WITHOUT necessitating any direct relationships or propositions or > connections or functions or mappings. > > > > Cheers > > > > Jerry > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
