Robert, All ...
At this point I have mostly questions, which would take further
research to answer, not to mention unpacking many books still
in boxes from our move a year and a half ago, none of which
I'm at liberty to do right now. So, just off the cuff ...
"Presupposition" is one of those words I tend to avoid, as it
has too many uses at odds with one another. There are at least
the architectonic, causal, and logical meanings. It it were only
a matter of logic, I would say "P presupposes Q" means "P => Q".
But usually people have something more pragmatic or rhetorical
in mind than pure logic would require, something like enthymeme.
It's also common for people to confound the implication order
"P => Q" with the causal order "P causes Q", whereas it's more
like the reverse of that. In more complex settings we usually
have the architectonic sense in mind, and that is what I sensed
in the case of the normative sciences. Viewed with regard to
their bases, logic is a special case of ethics and ethics is
a special case of aesthetics, but with regard to their levels
of oversight, aesthetics must submit to ethical control and
ethics must submit to logical control.
Early on, Peirce used "involution" with the meaning it has
in arithmetic or number theory, namely, exponentiation, where
x^y means taking x to the power y. See the following passage:
Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives : The Sign of Involution
https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Part_2#The_Sign_of_Involution
As far as the purely boolean or propositional analogue goes,
x^y for x, y in {0, 1} means the same a "x <= y", as you can
tell from the cases: 0^0 = 1, 1^0 = 1, 0^1 = 0, 1^1 = 1.
Whether Peirce is using "involution" that way in the sources
you are using, I do not know at this point.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/15/2020 1:00 PM, Robert Marty wrote:
I like ... what do you think of the presuppositions
between the levels? Do they make sense to you ?
Le mer. 15 avr. 2020 à 18:41, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> a écrit :
Robert,
With a few choice exceptions I have always found Peirce's earlier
writings on categories, relations, and semiotics to be more clear,
exact, and fruitful in practice than his last attempts to explain
himself without the requisite logical and mathematical formalisms.
Still, I do like that podium picture, comprehend it all or not,
and I found myself once using a similar picture to explain the
relationships among the big 3 normative sciences of aesthetics,
ethics, and logic. I called this "The Pragmatic Cosmos" using
"cosmos" in the sense of a global order. It seems most of this
stuff has fallen off the live web. Here's a few links I found:
The Pragmatic Cosmos (Oct 2003)
http://web.archive.org/web/20061014010215/http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html
Inquiry Oriented Systems (Feb 2004)
0.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070222005725/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd4.html#05337
1.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070302154925/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05337.html
8.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070302155036/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05344.html
The Pragmatic Cosmos (Mar 2012)
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00924.html
Regards,
Jon
On 4/10/2020 6:39 PM, robert marty wrote:
Dear colleagues hello,
I submit for your review this preprint which is awaiting publication :
https://academia.edu/resource/work/41574474
Here is his abstract :
"This article organizes Peirce's universal categories
and their degenerate forms from their presupposition
relationships. These relationships are formally clarified
on the basis of Frege's definition of presupposition.
They are visualized in a "podium" diagram. With these
forms, we then follow step by step the well-known and
very often cited third Peirce Lowell Conference of 1903
(third draft) in which he sets out his entire method of
analysis based on these categories. The very strong
congruence that is established between the podium and
the text validates the importance, even the necessity,
of taking into account these presuppositions in order
to correctly understand Peirce's phenomenology"
I would be very happy to read your comments.
Best regards
Robert Marty
-----------------------------
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 .
