Edwina and Jon,
Not surprisingly, I completely agree with Edwina, and I believe that
Jon missed the point that Peirce was trying to express.
ET
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.
Yes. Peirce was addressing the latest issues of his day, and he hoped
that future generations would build on his work to address the vital
issues of their times.
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.
JAS: 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.
Thanks for the more complete quotation. The deleted parts show that
Peirce was talking about a mental dialog between two "phases" of the
same ego. If you search CP for 'dialog', you'll find 36 occurrences
of 'dialogue' or 'dialogical'. Following is a typical example:
thinking always proceeds in the form of a dialogue -- a dialogue
between different phases of the ego -- so that, being dialogical,
it is essentially composed of signs, as its matter, in the sense in
which a game of chess has the chessmen for its matter. (CP 4.6)
Given this quotation, note that the full paragraph talks about two
parties in a "make-believe". In this case, the interpreter does not
have a name. But CP has eight occurrences where the two parties
are named Graphist and Grapheus. Since both of them are "phases" of
the same "ego", there is no real partitioning of the SA. In fact,
this paragraph does not mention any restriction on the immense surface
where the Graphist or the interpreter may scribe or move graphs.
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])
Now compare this paragraph to the commentary that Jon made about it.
Note that there is no recognition of the dialog between the two
"parties" of the same "ego", and the pattern of words is unrelated
to the subject matter of the paragraph.
JAS, note of June 7: 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.
A discontinuity in the flow of perception tends to draw my attention
to it involuntarily, such that the EG for that Perceptual Judgment
appears on the Sheet of Assertion. If I choose to attend to it
further--perhaps because it conflicts with my current beliefs as
derived from previous Perceptual Judgments, causing the irritation
of doubt that motivates all inquiry--then it serves as a premiss for
my subsequent deliberate reasoning; i.e., transforming that EG along
with previously scribed or transformed EGs. If truth is the end in
view, then this ought to be done in accordance with the logical
leading principles for Retroductive, Deductive, and Inductive
Arguments; in the case of necessary reasoning with EGs, the rules
for erasure and insertion.
This is not a clarification of that paragraph. It's just a collection
of random words, many of which Peirce used in various writings. But
the arrangement of those words does not clarify or explain anything
about the paragraph.
If Jon wants to say that this is his own opinion, I have no objection.
But I strongly object to any claim that it is something that Peirce
said, meant, implied, or intended.
And by the way, Peirce's sources can be helpful, especially when he
explicitly mentions them. For "the Plastic Nature of Cudworth",
Google found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Principle
For "artifex of nature", Google found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theologia_Poetica
These two sources show that Peirce's thoughts had no overlap with
anything Jon was writing about.
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 .
