John, List: I rested my case last night, but now have a few rebuttals to subsequent testimony.
JFS: In R669, he summarized the EG system that he had been developing since 1896. Then he developed a new system in R670 and L231 that is superior to the old system in every way. The system itself is *exactly the same*--remember, in R 670 Peirce calls the EG with shading (Fig. 11) "equivalent" to the one with a scroll (Fig. 10), which means that these are interchangeable. In other words ... JFS: If you just take the notation, examples, and rules of inference, the old EG system (prior to the recto/verso nonsense) is excellent. Every Alpha and Beta graph and every proof can be mapped to an exact equivalent in the 1911 version just by replacing the cuts and scrolls with shaded ovals. Indeed, "the 1911 version" *is *"the old EG system," the *only *difference being that shaded ovals replace cuts and scrolls. On the other hand, the 1906 *description *"was, on the whole, as bad as it well could be" (RL 376, 1911 Dec 6) and "far the worst I ever perpetrated" (RL 477, 1913 Nov 7). The 1911 *presentation *is thus superior in many ways, but *not *from the standpoint of philosophical rigor, since it omits the derivation of negation from the implication of falsity--which, again, Peirce advocates long before inventing EG in the first place, as well as in "The better exposition of 1903" (RL 376). *Omission is not rejection.* JFS: During May-June 1911, the paradisaical story for justifying the derivation of negation is the only thing he could have been referring to. Can you find any other reference to heaven, hell, or paradise that he might have intended? As I already noted, the parable of paradisaical logic does not mention heaven or hell at all, only the Garden of Eden; i.e., the human condition before the Fall (in the past), not the two alternatives for one's eternal destiny (in the future). Moreover, in R 669 Peirce does not actually tell the whole story, or even so much as gesture toward its details. CSP: It was forced upon the logician’s attention that a certain development of reasoning was possible before, or as if before, the concept of *falsity *had ever been framed, or any recognition of such a thing as a false assertion had ever taken place. Probably every human being passes through such a grade of intellectual life, which may be called *the state of paradisaical logic*, when reasoning takes place but when the idea of falsity, whether in assertion or in inference, has never been recognized. But it will soon be recognized that not every assertion is true; and that once recognized, as soon as one notices that if a certain thing were true, every assertion would be true, one at once rejects the antecedent that leads to that absurd consequence. (R 669:18-19[16-17], 1911 May 31; bold added) Positing a direct connection between "the state of paradisaical logic," written in one manuscript on May 31, and "in that long and dark corridor of metaphysical speculation it might be so easy to mistake the cellar door of hell for that of heaven," written on a discarded page of a different manuscript two weeks later, is quite the implausible stretch. Regardless, there is no need to find *something else* to which Peirce might have been vaguely referring with the latter remark--the immediate context is clear, and is *entirely *about the line of identity, thus having *nothing whatsoever* to do with the derivation of negation from the implication of falsity. JFS: Habit is a wordless way of showing intentions. On the contrary, "nobody can claim that anything other than an exact quotation is what Peirce intended." *Omission is not rejection.* JFS: I have found their [Ahti's and Francesco's] work to be an excellent resource. I plan to cc them on the note with my article. Please be sure to include the following statement from a previous post. JFS: Nobody -- not you, nor Ahti, nor Francesco, nor anybody else -- has shown any evidence to the contrary. I would be very interested in seeing their response to this assertion. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon AS, > > JAS> Remember, "nobody can claim that anything other than an exact > quotation is what Peirce intended" > > Thank you for emphasizing my point. The only solid evidence we have of > what Peirce intended is what he wrote before and after June 1911. But the > developments during the century after Peirce are essential for evaluating > his accomplishments. > > In R669, he summarized the EG system that he had been developing since > 1896. Then he developed a new system in R670 and L231 that is superior to > the old system in every way. (This last point is supported by evidence > from the century after Peirce, which I'm now writing.) > > JAS> "paradisaical" is an allusion to the Garden of Eden, not heaven. > > Thank you for that reminder. That explains Peirce's metaphor of the > "cellar door of heaven". Various religious beliefs and commentaries > mention a paradise on earth as the entry way (cellar door) to heaven. > > During May-June 1911, the paradisaical story for justifying the derivation > of negation is the only thing he could have been referring to. Can you > find any other reference to heaven, hell, or paradise that he might have > intended? > > JAS> "the one Dr. Carus rejected" (ibid) all the way back in 1897 as "the > most lucid and interesting paper I have ever written." > > Yes, I would also cite the four-page summary in RLT (1898) as a good > tutorial. It's especially good because Peirce did not mention the scroll > and the blot. (We can thank William James for that.) > > If you just take the notation, examples, and rules of inference, the old > EG system (prior to the recto/verso nonsense) is excellent. Every Alpha and > Beta graph and every proof can be mapped to an exact equivalent in the 1911 > version just by replacing the cuts and scrolls with shaded ovals. > > As for Peirce's own practice with scribing EGs, note that he never used > scrolls for complex EGs. After 1903, he never scribed any scrolls in his > Logic Notebook. Note Peirce's word 'helpful as a reason for replacing a > scroll with shading in R670. Habit is a wordless way of showing intentions. > > JAS> As for Ahti and Francesco, they have written and edited several books > and numerous papers about Peirce's thought, both together and separately. > > Yes. I have found their work to be an excellent resource. I plan to cc > them on the note with my article. > > 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
