Helmut, list
I've known Stan Salthe for many years. His email, if I recall, is
ssal...@binghampton.edu [1]
He writes primarily in the biosemiotics field; strange that 'The
Powers' on this list consider that I am, to quote, 'long discredited
in the biosemiotics field' - and a 'pseudo-Peircean' --- but Stan
frequently references me in both areas.
I don't consider him a deep follower of Peirce - and so, don't know
what he would feel about your proposal, Helmut. I, myself, don't
think that it has a strong Peircean grounding because the categories,
as 'modes of being', are about the nature of the relations those
'modes of being' engage in.
Edwina
On Mon 19/07/21 6:04 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Gary, Gary, List There is a paper about systems Hierarchies by
Stanley N. Salthe: "Salthe ´12 Axiomathes.pdf". I have it, but I
don´t know, if it is ok. to pass it on here? That would be like
publishing it without permission. I cannot find his Email-adress,
maybe you have it, and can ask him? My post was not an outline in
the sense of an abstract, it was just an idea, that we can elaborate
together, if you want. I was asking myself, how can a phenomenon as
firstness, in the primisense state, not consist of parts. Then
"composition" came into my mind, as it doesn´t have parts. I
don´t know, if Stanley N. Sathe would agree with my proposal of
assigning categories to the systems hierarchies, and with the third
hierarchy "definition, 2ns" I proposed. Best, Helmut 18. Juli
2021 um 22:15 Uhr
"Gary Richmond"
wrote: Helmut, Gary F, List, I do find this "systems
hierarchies" approach intriguing although I know it only
superficially. I haven't studied it so that I can't yet see how it
directly relates to phaneroscopy, at least from your brief outline.
I vaguely recall some discussion of Salthe's work relating to
"systems hierarchies" on the biosemiotics list a number of years ago,
and I believe that Gary Fuhrman knows Salthe's work rather well.
Indeed they co-authored a paper on what appears, however, to be an
unrelated topic. See: 'The Cosmic Bellows: The Big Bang and the
Second Law’ (with lead author Stanley N. Salthe) in Cosmos and
History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 1, no. 2,
2005. Abstract with link to full text at www.cosmosandhistory.org.
THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO SALTHE\'S WORK SCATTERED
THROUGHOUT GARY BOOK, TURNING SIGNS. SEE:
HTTPS://WWW.GNUSYSTEMS.CA/TS/INDEX.HTML [2] IF YOU ENTER SALTHE\'S
NAME IN THE \'SEARCH\' BAR ON THIS PAGE YOU\'LL BE BROUGHT TO A PAGE
WHICH LISTS SALT HE\'S WORK REFERENCED IN TURNING SIGNS AND THE
CHAPTERS IN TS IN WHICH SALTHE\'S WORK IS DISCUSSED.
SO, PERHAPS GARY F HAS SOME HELPFUL THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER.
Best, Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 1:55 PM Helmut
Raulien wrote: Gary, List About the categories in phaneroscopy,
and how they derive or not from logic and mathematics, I think that
the systems hierarchies "composition" and "subsumption" (Stanley N.
Salthe) can be used, with the third hierarchy "definition" that I am
suggesting: Composition (1ns) is not collection, but the way the
parts of the appearance are collected. A collection consists of
parts, but a composition does not, because there is only one way of
composition in a certain composition. So a composition as a
phenomenon has no parts, is firstness. Definition (2ns) means what
a composition is. So it consists of two parts: The entity
composition, and what it is. What is secondness (standing against)
here, is the appearance of a border. Nevertheless up to here it is
positive logic, because merely the inside of the border is regarded.
Subsumption or classification (3ns) has three parts: The composition,
that what it is, and all that it not is. with this latter exclusion,
negative logic (negation) comes into the game. This view of a
phenomenon is, that it does not consist of directly depicted things,
but rather of the hierarchies that connect them and themselves (the
hierarchies). From this view, reversed, the hypothesis may be
derived, that the original things have no existence in themselves,
but are products of their positions in these hierarchies, and can be
backwards-identified from this categorial arrangement of hierarchies.
But this is only a hypothesis: Perhaps the backwards-identification is
blurred and incorrect, like intuition is often incorrect and not
precise. Best, Helmut 18. Juli 2021 um 05:27 Uhr
"Gary Richmond"
wrote: Jon, List Jon wrote: [I]t appears
that Atkins is right not to see much difference between "the -adicity
of relative terms themselves" and "propositional forms." Nevertheless,
both terms and propositions are obviously signs, and I believe that it
is important to maintain the distinction between the formal logic of
relations/relatives as pure mathematics and its application to terms
and propositions within the normative science of logic as semeiotic.
(Emphasis added by GR) I whole-heartedly agree that
making this distinction is essential. Yet, in my experience there are
discussions of the logic of relatives as purportedly providing the
mathematical principles which will become the basis for
phenomenologists expecting to find -- and subsequently actually
finding examples of manifestations of the Universal Categories --
which seem to me to, at very least, blur the important distinction
you make above. Occasionally I've had a sense that an author is not
discussing pure mathematics, the simplest mathematics (including the
logic of relatives) but, rather, exactly the applications of these to
logic as semeiotic. In the days and weeks ahead I'll offer examples of
this, perhaps including some from Atkins' book. You quoted Peirce as
writing, "The Phaneron [is] itself far too elusive for direct
observation." But then what are we to make of Peirce's directing
us elsewhere to phaneroscopic observations of qualities of feeling,
to existential actions/reactions, to representations, thoughts,
signs, say: 1ns (e.g., a red color), or 2ns (the manifestation of a
dual action, e.g., a loud sound suddenly breaking the silence), or
3ns (e.g., thoughts of these as signs of 1ns and 2ns)? Does Peirce
not argue elsewhere that it is possible to phenomenologically observe
whatever comes before the mind unencumbered by mathematical
(including valentally structural) or logical thoughts? The
quotation continues: What, in a general way, does the Diagram of
Existential Graphs represent the mode of structure of the Phaneron to
be like? The question calls for a comparison, and in answering it a
little flight of fancy will be in order. It represents the structure
of the Phaneron to be quite like that of a chemical compound. ...
Each Elementary Graph, like each chemical element, has its definite
Valency. . . In my opinion, valency and the reduction thesis are,
in themselves, not at all sufficient to establish phenomenology as a
science; let's say that they are necessary, but not sufficient. No
doubt one can employ EGs to analyze phenomenological manifestations
after the fact of phaneroscopic observation. But monadicity,
dyadicity, and triadicity are totally void of content. They are,
indeed, the "modes of structure" of the phaneron for Peirce. But it
would seem to me that he contradicts himself here (in consideration
of many other discussions) in saying that "the Phaneron [is] itself
far too elusive for direct observation." If that were so, then
phaneroscopy would amount to, well, virtually nothing: it would be
empty of content. I'm fairly certain that there are some logicians
who hold that view. But isn't such "direct observation" the method
-- and in a sense -- the very essence of phaneroscopy? Best, Gary
R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:42 PM Jon Alan
Schmidt wrote: Gary R., List: GR: Is it in that "next
chapter" that Peirce takes up the logic of relations? This seems
to have been the plan that he had in mind when he was writing "The
Simplest Mathematics" as chapter 3 of Minute Logic (R 429, CP
4.227-323, 1902). CSP: In this chapter, I propose to consider
certain extremely simple branches of mathematics which, owing to
their utility in logic, have to be treated in considerable detail,
although to the mathematician they are hardly worth consideration. In
Chapter 4, I shall take up those branches of mathematics upon which
the interest of mathematicians is centred, but shall do no more than
make a rapid examination of their logical procedure. In Chapter 5, I
shall treat formal logic by the aid of mathematics. There can really
be little logical matter in these chapters; but they seem to me to be
quite indispensable preliminaries to the study of logic. (CP 4.227)
There are at least two other manuscript drafts of chapter 3 (R
430-431), but the manuscripts for chapter 4 (R 432-434) all bear a
very different title--"Ethics"--and there are no manuscripts
catalogued by Robin for chapter 5. However, in one of the manuscripts
for How to Reason: A Critick of Arguments (1893)--which is supposed to
be published in its entirety someday as Volume 10 of the Chronological
Edition--Peirce states, "We now come to the Logic of Relations ...
which was only brought to essential completion in 1884" (R 481:5). In
an accompanying footnote, he cites his own landmark paper, "On the
Algebra of Logic: A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation" (CP
3.359-403, 1885); but "logic of relations" never appears in that
text, only "logic of relatives." He proceeds to explain why.
CSP: A relation is precisely defined as a fact about several
subjects. A fact is an element of the truth expressible as a
proposition. As all logic deals with relations, it is more accurate
to describe the branch of logic which I am going to expound as the
logic of relatives, i.e. relative terms. Relations as relatives are
either dual, as in "A loves B" or plural, as "A gives B to C." (R
481:5) Hence, it appears that Atkins is right not to see much
difference between "the -adicity of relative terms themselves" and
"propositional forms." Nevertheless, both terms and propositions are
obviously signs, and I believe that it is important to maintain the
distinction between the formal logic of relations/relatives as pure
mathematics and its application to terms and propositions within the
normative science of logic as semeiotic. Of course, Peirce was
writing Minute Logic right about the time when he first fully
recognized the need to insert phenomenology/phaneroscopy, esthetics,
and ethics into his classification of the sciences between
mathematics and (normative) logic--a major revision to his earlier
outline, in which logic as the first branch of empirics comes right
after mathematics. Again, Bellucci suggests that Existential Graphs
are the "best notational expression" of the logic of relatives. It
thus seems plausible to view Peirce's abundant writings about EGs as
replacing whatever he might otherwise have written about the logic of
relations/relatives in the missing chapters 4 and 5 of Minute Logic.
Moreover, as Gary F. reminds us occasionally, Peirce considers EGs to
be a highly useful tool not only for logic, but also for phaneroscopy.
CSP: Let us call the collective whole of all that could ever be
present to the mind in any way or in any sense, the Phaneron. ... The
Phaneron being itself far too elusive for direct observation, there
can be no better method of studying it than through the Diagram of it
which the System of Existential Graphs puts at our disposition. ...
What, in a general way, does the Diagram of Existential Graphs
represent the mode of structure of the Phaneron to be like? The
question calls for a comparison, and in answering it a little flight
of fancy will be in order. It represents the structure of the
Phaneron to be quite like that of a chemical compound. ... Each
Elementary Graph, like each chemical element, has its definite
Valency ... . This is resemblance enough. (NEM 4:320-321, 1906)
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural
Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [6] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[7] On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 7:36 PM Gary Richmond wrote:
Gary F, Jon S, List, [Note: I had nearly
completed this message when I read JAS's post which included his
correction of the "procedural order" reversing numbers 1 and 2 just
below.]
GF: The procedural order here is:
*
*settling “what the phaneron is”
*“considering what is possible” [by means of a formal or
mathematical logic?]
*“undertaking the actual work of observation” [i.e.
phaneroscopic observation]
This leaves open the question of how to classify the science [. . .
] which enables us to “settle” what the phaneron is. Bellucci
appears to argue that it is the logic of relatives , taking a cue (as
it were) from the idea of valency generalized from the science of
chemistry.
Richard Kenneth Atkins argues along similar lines as do Houser and
others. In a footnote to Chapter 3 of Atkins' Charles S. Peirce's
Phenomenology: Analysis and Consciousness (Oxford University Press,
2018) he writes:
RKA: I should note that my account here slightly diverges from other
accounts in that others have taken Peirce's categories to derive from
the -adicity of relative terms themselves whereas I am taking them to
derive from propositional forms, that is, a relative term that also
has one or more subjects. [ . . .] Nevertheless, I do not think the
difference is substantive.(232, n. 1)
While it seems sound enough that the phaneroscopic categories are
informed by -adicity, valency (which is most certainly an idea
'borrowed' from chemistry), and the reduction thesis (at least
suggesting that only three universal categories will manifest in the
phaneron), it seems to me that it is possible that all these elements
are found at the beginning of "The Simplest Mathematics" (especially
in remarks regarding "Trichotomic Mathematics") even before Peirce
introduces the logic of relatives. (But this is a mere guess
dependent on, among other other factors, the precise dating of
relevant documents.) Peirce begins "with a little a
priori chemistry."
The most fundamental fact about the number three is its generative
potency. This is a great philosophical truth having its origin and
rationale in mathematics. It will be convenient to begin with a
little a priori chemistry. An atom of helion, neon, argon, xenon,
crypton, appears to be a medad (if I may be allowed to form a
patronymic from {méden}). Argon gives us, with its zero valency, the
one single type A. (CP 4.309)
He continues in this vein, taking up other valencies which
lead him to a discussion of triads.
Triads, on the other hand, will give every possible
variety of type. Thus, we may imagine the atom of argon to be really
formed of four triads, thus [. . .] We may imagine the monadic atom
to be composed of seven triads; [. . . ] A dyad will be obtained by
breaking any bond of A; while higher valencies may be produced,
either simply [. . . ] or in an intricate manner. CP 4.309 [note:
each bracket above is a diagram inserted into the text.]
He arrives at what might be seen as the crux of
the trichotomic matter for both phaneroscopy, logic as semeiotic, and
most likely metaphysics as well: It
would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that the whole of mathematics
is enwrapped in these trichotomic graphs; and they will be found
extremely pertinent to logic. So prolific is the triad in forms that
one may easily conceive that all the variety and multiplicity of the
universe springs from it [. . . ] All that springs from the [valental
triad, a diagram inserted into the text] -- an emblem of fertility in
comparison with which the holy phallus of religion's youth is a poor
stick indeed. CP 4.310 [Emphasis added.]
Finally, and somewhat abruptly, he arrives at the conclusion of
this section of the paper (the editors of the CP end here with no
additional sections of "The Simplest Mathematics" immediately
following).
OTHER POINTS CONCERNING TRICHOTOMIC MATHEMATICS ARE MORE OF LOGICAL
THAN OF MATHEMATICAL INTEREST, AND ARE SO WOVEN WITH LOGIC IN MY MIND
THAT I WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO SET THEM FORTH FROM A PURELY MATHEMATICAL
POINT OF VIEW. HERE, THEN, I CONCLUDE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY OF THESE
VERY SIMPLE BRANCHES OF MATHEMATICS WHICH LIE AT THE ROOT OF FORMAL
LOGIC. THOSE OF WHICH THE INTEREST IS MORE PURELY MATHEMATICAL MUST
BE TREATED IN A VERY DIFFERENT MANNER IN THE NEXT CHAPTER.†1 (CP
4.323)
The
CP editors write in Fn 1.
Peirce: CP 4.323 Fn 1 p 262 †1 That chapter does
not seem to have been written. See 227n
Is it in that "next chapter" that Peirce takes up the logic of
relations? Of course, given the editorial practices of the editors of
the CP, that alleged "unwritten" chapter could be anywhere or no where
or, in fact, not written or completed at the time of the writing of
"The Simplest Mathematics" so that the l ogic of relations is taken
up somewhere else completely. I hope someone here can answer that
question.
To summarize: It seems to me that all the necessary ingredients --
-adicity (esp. triadicity) valency, and the reduction thesis --
already appear in the comments above (from which I've extracted only
a few snippets) in "The Simplest Mathematics." In any event, either
applying the principles just set forth above or those found in the
logic of relatives is, as Jon wrote, "using principles adapted from
mathematics within phaneroscopy."
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [9] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu [10] 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 [11] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [12] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT
to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [13] 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 [14] . ►
PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ►
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 [15] . ►
PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] mailto:ssal...@binghampton.edu
[2] http://webmail.primus.ca/HTTPS://WWW.GNUSYSTEMS.CA/TS/INDEX.HTML
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[7] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
[12]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[13]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[14] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
[15] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
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.
