BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
Thanks for your post and comments - and for your reference to Rene
Thom, who was one of the first I ever read on complexity and
catastrophe theory.
And enjoy the Milford event - I'm sure it will be a special day.
Edwina
On Wed 17/04/19 4:47 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
John, Edwina, Jeff, List,
John wrote:
JS: Peirce frequently said that he thinks in diagrams and that he
hasconsiderable difficulty in translating his thoughts into words.
I'm not sure how frequently he said it, but Peirce certainly did say
it, and no doubt he thought essentially in diagrams. There are
several on this list, including me, who have commented that they too
tend to think in diagrams, and this may not be as rare an occurrence
as I once thought it was. On the other hand, it is possible that few
have thought so completely, deeply and well in diagrams as did CSP,
and his creation and development of Existential Graphs can surely be
offered into 'evidence' as 'Exhibit 1'.
On the other hand, Peirce certainly wrote a tremendous amount of
words! (I'm sure there is someone on the list who can quickly
calculate approximately how many just in the sources available to us
in print.)
JS: When Peirce or anybody else is doing diagrammatic reasoning,
somewords may be helpful as explanations. But as soon as we are
clear about what the features of the diagram refer to, the words
becomeirrelevant. If the words create confusion, replace them with
betterwords. But when the diagram becomes clear, ignore the words.
We are immersed in language and other signs (we are in the thoughts,
not the thoughts in us), and while more iconic diagrams than
sentences can help facilitate, streamline and, especially, clarify
our thinking (and Stjernfelt and others see EGs as "optimally
iconic"), we are pretty much stuck with language for much of our
thinking, and especially the expressing of it to others, and most
especially when a diagram is not handy or has not yet been
constructed. I do not see how words can ever "become irrelevant" even
for those who "think in diagrams" and employ them in the explication
of certain concepts and complexes of concepts.
And "if words create confusion"--as no doubt they do--how are we to
"replace them with better words"? Who is to decide what constitutes
"better words"?
Continuing:
JS: General principle: Agreeing to disagree never solves anything.A
better solution is to emphasize the diagrams and delete, replace, or
ignore any words that create disagreement.
Sometimes the disagreement is so profound that "agreeing to
disagree" may be, if not a solution, at least a decent way of
delaying further consideration of the issue until each participant in
the discussion has reflected on the substance of the disagreement, a
very pragmatic thing to do, I'd suggest.
One may then come to see, say, that the other's view is, indeed,
more correct or, perhaps, that 'my view' is eventually seen by me as
being in need of correction or even complete replacement. For a
person with an open mind, that is always a wonderful revelation! And,
naturally, having ones own view confirmed by thoughtful others is
nearly as good :-)
But sometimes a person will just dig in his heels and insist on the
correctness of his view (and his words) and is simply not willing to
"replace" or "ignore" any of his own words, unwilling "to emphasize
the diagram" even, etc. So, while "agreeing to disagree never solves
anything," sometimes, at least for a time, it is better to do that
than to quarrel, especially if a useful diagram is not readily
available.
John quoted Peirce:
CSP: > Every triadic relationship involves three dyadic
relationships > and three monadic characters; just as every dyadic
action involves> two monadic characters. A monadic character involves
nothing dyadic > or triadic; nor does a dyadic action involve anything
triadic. But> a triad always involves three dyads and three monads;
and a dyad> involves two monads. (CP 6.331)
Then commented:
Note the word 'involve'. It's an extremely vague word that couldbe
made more precise by using other words. But more precise wordsare
likely to cause endless disagreement, confusion, and debate.
One has, I think, to consider the context. In "The Mathematics of
Logic." for example, Peirce analyses the triadic relation offered in
the snippet you quote above according to the "order of involution"
(CP 1.484). There is nothing "extremely vague" about the use of
"involve" there. From the standpoint of monadic/ dyadic/ triadic
categoriality, 3ns involves 2ns and 1ns and 2ns involves 1ns only
(and the several "relationships" and "characters" implied). But here
we do have a diagram.
And, yes, in some other contexts "involve" can be "an extremely
vague word."
John, thank you for this post which has proved quite helpful to me
in several ways. For one thing it has encouraged me to reconsider
Edwina's idea of semiosis operating as a CAS, especially since I have
found some support for that idea in the literature.
Edwina, I have begun a post addressed to you including some of that
support. For one quick example, the mathematician, Rene Thom, applied
what he termed "catastrophe theory" to semiotics. I am not sure I will
be able to complete it before I leave for Milford tomorrow for the
mini-conference around the dedication of the Peirce monument, but I
will try; and if I can't complete it today, I'll try to finish it on
Saturday after I've returned.
Jeff, thanks for getting this entire conversation started!
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:45 AM John F Sowa wrote:
Jeff, Edwina, and Gary R,
Peirce frequently said that he thinks in diagrams and that he has
considerable difficulty in translating his thoughts into words.
When Peirce or anybody else is doing diagrammatic reasoning, some
words may be helpful as explanations. But as soon as we are clear
about what the features of the diagram refer to, the words become
irrelevant. If the words create confusion, replace them with better
words. But when the diagram becomes clear, ignore the words.
JBD
> It is good to hear that we agree on something. It isn't yet clear
> to me where the agreements end and the disagreements start.
ET
> My understanding of 'medium' is more akin to a 'container' than
> a transformative process.
GR
> I see the Sign as a medium (not like a 'container' at all)
I believe that the words are the major obstacle. As an example,
see the attached diagram giveEG.gif, which shows two EGs for the
sentence "Sue gives a child a book". Then note how that diagram
can be explained in terms of the following quotation.
CSP
> Every triadic relationship involves three dyadic relationships
> and three monadic characters; just as every dyadic action involves
> two monadic characters. A monadic character involves nothing
dyadic
> or triadic; nor does a dyadic action involve anything triadic. But
> a triad always involves three dyads and three monads; and a dyad
> involves two monads. (CP 6.331)
Note the word 'involve'. It's an extremely vague word that could
be made more precise by using other words. But more precise words
are likely to cause endless disagreement, confusion, and debate.
Now consider the two EGs in giveEG.gif as illustrations of CP 6.331.
The EG on the left shows a triadic relationship named Gives, which
"involves" three dyadic relations named Agent, Recipient, and Theme
in the EG on the right.
In Both EGs, there are three monadic characters named Sue, Child,
and Book. In the EG on the right the triad named Gives has been
replaced by a teridentity, which represents some unnamed entity.
That entity is a hypostatic abstraction of the triad named Gives
in the EG on the left. For convenience, we could, if we wish,
name it Giving by adding a fourth line to the teridentity (thereby
making it a tetra-identity) and attaching the name Giving at the
other end of the line.
General principle: Agreeing to disagree never solves anything.
A better solution is to emphasize the diagrams and delete,
replace, or ignore any words that create disagreement.
John
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
