Jon, That is important. Do you have a citation?
JAS
I recently came across some research suggesting that the manuscript pages for Peirce's "tutorial" on EGs were misfiled with R 514, and do not actually date to 1909; rather, he likely wrote the material either shortly before or at the same time as his June 22, 1911 letter to Mr. Kehler.
Since Peirce was always revising and restating his earlier writings, I had assumed that R 514 contained material from 1909 *plus* any revisions that he made while he was preparing the clean copy for his 1911 letter. Peirce could never resist that temptation. JAS
I referred to Peirce's direct analogy between continuous motion and semeiosis vs. discrete positions/instants and definite Propositions.
Peirce's writings about continuity were based on mathematical axioms, many of which he discovered before or independently of Dedekind and Cantor. The mappings from one version to another are precise applications of the axioms, not vague analogies. JAS
It seems safe to assume that what he had in mind for "stereoscopic moving pictures" would have taken full advantage of this conceptual correspondence.
Yes. But the term "conceptual correspondence" is too vague. Note what he said in NEM 3:191, CSP
I am convinced there is a far better [way of thinking], capable of wonders; but the great cost of the apparatus forbids my learning it. It consists in thinking in stereoscopic moving pictures. Of course one might substitute the real objects moving in solid space; and that might not be so very unreasonably costly.
Just looking at any movie in 1911 would be sufficient to give him an idea of a vague correspondence. But when Peirce talked about "learning it", he meant writing a precise specification for moving objects in space. I believe that one reason why he made the drastic simplification in his terminology of 1911 is that he deleted any word that could not be generalized to 3D or moving 3D. He could generalize a shaded area to a shaded 3D region, but there is no way to generalize the recto and verso of a sheet with cuts that that allow a line on one side to "abut" a line on the other side. I suspect that he deleted the word 'spot' in 1911 because he was thinking of solid objects in his 3D graphs. It was simpler to attach a line to an object (or some part of an object) than to attach it to a spot adjacent to that object. In the 2D EGs of 1911 (NEM 3:162-169), he attached lines to words that named predicates. He did not talk about spots. That eliminates one more word. John
----------------------------- 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 .
