John, List: JFS: 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.
That is precisely what I often seek to do here on the List, along with providing excerpts from manuscripts that are still unpublished in the hope of shedding further light on more familiar passages. With that in mind, I will follow up on this response with the version of my initial post that includes all of the citations. 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 ... (R 280:82[29]; c. 1904-1905) JFS: 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. No, Peirce said that the Sheet of Assertion is merely a *specific portion* of an immense surface; the latter represents the interpreter's *Experience*, while the former represents the interpreter's *field of attention*. CSP: Upon the great surface the Graphist alone has the power to scribe any graph; while he scribes what he sees fit. (R 280:82[29]) JFS: But the mention of Graphist implies that Peirce is talking about a dialog with Grapheus in the process of endoporeutic. No, although Peirce mentioned "Grapheus" and dialog in some of his *other *writings about EGs, he did not do so in *this *particular one. CSP: 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. When I indicate an ellipsis, it is usually to help maintain focus on the specific topic at hand, as well as to reduce the length of the excerpt. Again, there is no "dialog with Grapheus" in this case, as you can see for yourself in the complete text of the paragraph that I quoted. CSP: Two parties are, in our make-believe, feigned to be concerned in the scribing of graphs; the one called the *Graphist*, the other the *interpreter*. 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; namely, the former is that part of the latter that falls within the field of view of the interpreter. Upon the great surface the Graphist alone has the power to scribe any graph; while he scribes what he sees fit. The interpreter, for his part, has the power, with more or less effort, to move the graph-instances about as he pleases, so long as he keeps them separate from one another, so that no two shall touch. In particular, he can move such ones as he likes and as many as he likes into his field of view, the sheet of assertion; or he can move them away. 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. The Graphist must be regarded as corresponding to the “Plastic Nature” of Cudworth, or else to the Artifex of Nature. (R 280:82-83[29-30]) The Graphist scribes Graphs on the immense surface, forcing the interpreter's Experience upon him. The interpreter moves those Graph-instances around as he pleases, presumably transforming some of the ones that he brings into his field of attention--the Sheet of Assertion--in accordance with the usual permissions. The illustration here is not of "the way people solve problems," but of the way people *make inferences* about their Experience, and thereby *derive knowledge* from it; i.e., establish their beliefs on the basis of the Perceptual Judgments that serve as "the first premisses of all our reasonings" (CP 5.116, EP 2:191; 1903). JFS: 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. If you would like to quote and comment on some other passages where Peirce actually wrote about this, by all means please do so. JFS: Juxtaposing quotations is fine. But it's essential to make a sharp distinction between Peirce's words and anybody else's. I agree, which is why I always carefully try to do just that. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
