John, List: JFS: That is important. Do you have a citation?
The work is still in preparation for publication, so I am not yet at liberty to cite it. I was working from memory earlier, and reviewing it now, it does not actually explain the basis for the revised dating to 1911. The timing of the letter to Mr. Kehler only days after the writing of R 669 and R 670, and the switch from Cuts to shading between the latter two manuscripts, are my own observations. JFS: 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. He did not talk about predicates, either. That eliminates yet another word. In fact, he simply stated, "Every word makes an assertion," and "By a '*graph*' I mean *the way* in which a given assertion is scribed" (NEM 3:162-163). On the other hand, I find it noteworthy that he *did *talk about subjects--"Indivisible graphs usually carry '*pegs*' which are places on their periphery appropriated to denote, each of them, one of the subjects of the graph" (NEM 3:164). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:25 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
