BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I fully agree and specifically refer to your points
3. "Show how Peirce's writings can clarify, enhance, or correct
writings by more recent authors from the 20th and 21st c.
4. Add new examples that show how Peirce's writings can be
applied to topics that he had not written about in his day. "
I think these two points are vital, for they move out of the
isolate, almost inward-looking focus on 'the text' and show how
Peirce can be used to examine and explore the real world. As you say,
Peirce was a 'problem-solver'. But this list seems adverse to such
actions; whenever I try, for example, to introduce societal or
biological topics that would, I suggest, benefit from a Peircean
analysis - I'm met with either silence or contemptuous sneers that
such an action is 'unscientific', is 'esoteric' and so on.
And it isn't simply humans who solve problems by a mental dialogue
with themselves; that paramecium does the same.
Edwina
On Sun 16/06/19 10:56 AM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
Gary R,
Before saying anything about Jon's comments, I want to emphasize
something I mentioned in a previous note. It's also a point that
other people have observed about published books and articles.
In any commentary, the quotations by Peirce are nearly always
clearer and more precise than the commentary by anybody who
attempts to "clarify" what Peirce wrote.
By that observation, I do *not* mean that it's useless to write
anything about Peirce -- because I have learned a great deal
by reading books and articles written about Peirce and his work.
But the best writing can help in several ways:
1. Bring together passages from widely separated texts and MSS
to show how they are related or how one adds aspects or
features
that are missing from the other.
2. Show how Pierce interpreted writings by other authors (from
antiquity to the early 20th c.) and how he related their ideas
to his point of view.
3. Show how Peirce's writings can clarify, enhance, or correct
writings by more recent authors from the 20th and 21st c.
4. Add new examples that show how Peirce's writings can be
applied to topics that he had not written about in his day.
Peirce was a problem solver. He developed his logic and semeiotic
to solve problems in science, engineering, philosophy, and
psychology.
The best way to understand what he wrote is to apply his ideas to
the
problems we are facing today. That is what Peirce would be doing if
he were with us now, and that's how he hoped future generations
would
use and develop his ideas.
GR
> [Jon's] post of June 7th is such a clear, complete (as an
outline), yet
> extraordinarily succinct articulation of the semeiotic
preconditions for
> the formation of "a 'scientific' intelligence, that is to say, by
an
> intelligence capable of learning by experience" that I'm surprised
it
> hasn't been commented on here since its posting.
That quotation by Peirce is clear and complete by itself: A dog is
capable of learning from experience. Therefore, a dog has
scientific
intelligence. Biologists have discovered that a paramecium (with no
neurons of any kind) is capable of learning from experience.
Therefore,
a paramecium has scientific intelligence.
Peirce related the origin of life to the first non-degenerate
Thirdness.
During the past century, biologists and neuroscientists have
discovered
an enormous amount of information about neurons, DNA, and the
organelles
inside a single cell.
That's an extremely important area for applying Peirce's theories.
But a rehash of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, by itself, tells us nothing.
For example, the following note by Peirce is very clear:
> CSP: Namely, although the sheet that is actually employed may be
> quite small, we make believe that the so-called sheet of assertion
> is only a particular region, or area, of an immense surface ...
> Upon the great surface the Graphist alone has the power to scribe
> any graph; while he scribes what he sees fit. ...
In short, Peirce says that the SA is potentially infinite. There
is no limit to the number of graphs that may be inscribed on it.
But the mention of Graphist implies that Peirce is talking about
a dialog with Grapheus in the process of endoporeutic.
But the two occurrences of "..." indicate some deletions. I don't
know why Jon deleted them, but the dialog with Grapheus is
important.
Peirce used that dialog to illustrate the way people solve problems
by a mental dialog with themselves.
> CSP continues: We further conceive that this feigned sensible
state
> of things is the icon or emblem of a mental state of things.
Namely,
> the immense surface with the graphs scribed upon it is the image
of
> the interpreter’s experience, while the sheet of assertion, his
field
> of view is the image of his field of attention. His experience is
> forced upon him, while he attends to what he pleases, if he puts
> forth sufficient effort. (R 280:82-83[29-30]; c. 1904-1905)
This says that the surface with its graphs is an icon of the
person's
mental experience. It corresponds to what psychologists today call
a "mental model". That is where Peirce made important contributions
that psychologists are beginning to notice. That's where the action
is.
> JAS: My Experience is forced upon me as a continuous stream of
> Perceptual Judgments, often subconsciously, like EGs that the
> Graphist perpetually scribes anywhere on the immense surface...
This sentence and its continuation is a distraction. it seems to
imply
that learning involves adding EGs to the SA. That is rote learning,
which computers do far more efficiently than people. The mental
dialog
between Graphist and Grapheus is a deeper kind of learning that
adapts
and assimilates the new information to the old information. That is
a major insight that should be emphasized.
I also found the other two quotations by Peirce to be clearer than
Jon's additions. The categories of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns are certainly
important. But if Peirce felt that they would have clarified his
meaning in those passages, he would have said so.
I am not claiming that we should stop commenting on what Peirce
wrote.
And I certainly do not want to block anybody's way of inquiry.
But I am highly skeptical about any claims or implications about
what
he "really" meant. Juxtaposing quotations is fine. But it's
essential
to make a sharp distinction between Peirce's words and anybody
else's.
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 .
