Gary F, Jon S, Bernard, List, I must admit that I've been finding the discussion of 'pure' vs 'applied' mathematics a bit frustrating since the distinction which Peirce makes between the two is quite clear (whether one agrees with it or not) and has been explicated here with textual support quite adequately and, in my opinion, more than adequately for a discussion centered on phaneroscopy/phenomenology.
However, for now I'd like to comment rather much more generally on our decision to do a slow read of Andre's PowerPoint presentation. Bernard wrote: BM: This is clearly a blunder since if the world stopped existing, there would no more exist mathematicians at all, neither pure nor applied. And Jon commented: JAS: I would call it hyperbole rather than a blunder. The point is that for Peirce, *pure *mathematics does not concern itself with whether or not its hypotheses correspond to anything that exists. Gary F hads earlier responded to Bernard's comment: GF: Yes, you can regard De Tienne’s statement about mathematicians in a non-existing world as a logical blunder; I regard it as a manifestation of his peculiar sense of humor. Combining those two responses, I would say that De Tienne's statement is an example of his use of hyperbole as a manifestation of his unique sense of humor. Anyone who knows Andre personally or perhaps has been at an event where he was speaking knows that he enjoys playing pranks, making jokes, and the like. This is characteristically so even in his more formal presentations at conferences and seminars, etc. For example, forum members may recall Sally Ness's account of the 'seance' that he conducted at the mini-conference in conjunction with the dedication of the Peirce monument in Milford a few years ago as an exaggerated expression of his distinctive (some might say 'peculiar') sense of humor. However, the specific point I want to make is that we are *not* doing a slow read of an academic paper or a scholarly book as we have in the past, but of a slide show presentation accompanying remarks by De Tienne which most likely not only explicated or, perhaps, expanded on the brief comments appearing on each slide, but which, through verbal and non-verbal means, helped clarify the meanings attached to each slide, revealing which were meant humorously, etc. Taking such a comment as the one being discussed here *literally* could most naturally lead someone, in this case the very learned Bernard Morand (whom I'm delighted to see participating in this slow read), to see it as a blunder. I suppose that's something of a hazard for this experiment in doing a slow read of slides accompanying a talk, especially one given by such a clever fellow as Andre De Tienne. On the other hand, the format of this slow read has certain obvious advantages as well, or at least that seems to me to be the case. 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* <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_-7824581777754386308_m_1529943705879177380_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:45 AM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bernard, List: > > I agree with Gary F.'s reply just now, but already drafted this one so I > am going ahead and posting it. > > BM: This is clearly a blunder since if the world stopped existing, there > would no more exist mathematicians at all, neither pure nor applied. > > > I would call it hyperbole rather than a blunder. The point is that for > Peirce, *pure *mathematics does not concern itself with whether or not > its hypotheses correspond to anything that exists. > > BM: Writing such a definitive judgment is just ignoring the every day work > of mathematicians who pass their time in diverses *experiments *with > forms, abstracts figures, models, constructs, etc., not to speak of the > value of their underlying hypotheses. > > > As I have noted before, Peirce states very clearly that unlike all the > other sciences, *pure *mathematics is not a *positive *science. The > "experiments" conducted by *pure *mathematicians take place *entirely *in > the imagination, although often aided by concrete tokens of the relevant > diagram types. > > BM: And since it will be repeated in the following slide, it has an > intended purpose: to show that pure mathematics are internally coherent > wild dreams cut off [from] the world. > > > Indeed, that is consistent with Peirce's *explicit *definitions of *pure > *mathematics > as reflected in the numerous quotations that I have previously provided, > although I would substitute "ideal hypotheses" for "wild dreams." > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 9:40 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > >> Bernard, list, >> >> Yes, you can regard De Tienne’s statement about mathematicians in a >> non-existing world as a logical blunder; I regard it as a manifestation of >> his peculiar sense of humor. >> >> As for the experience of mathematicians doing pure mathematics, you can >> indeed call it “experience,” but only in a peculiar sense which is contrary >> to Peirce’s regular usage. Usually in Peirce, the distinction between the >> internal and external worlds corresponds directly to the difference between >> a “world of imagination” and “the actual world.” The idea of externality is >> virtually identical with the idea of Secondness and is closely related to >> the metaphysical idea of *reality*. Peirce usually refers to >> “experience” as something *forced* upon us, indicating that Secondness >> is essential to it. In these Peircean terms, the “everyday work” of >> mathematicians, *insofar is it is purely hypothetical*, takes place in >> an internal world, a realm of “degenerate Secondness” (EP1:280, W6:211). >> >> As JAS has been reminding us, the context of De Tienne’s talk/slideshow >> involves a focus on *pure* mathematics and a corresponding neglect of >> mathematical *applications*. This is one reason why he (and Peirce) do >> not refer to pure mathematics as “experiential” in the sense that >> phaneroscopy is. >> >> Gary f. >> >> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> >> *On Behalf Of *Bernard Morand >> *Sent:* 11-Aug-21 09:18 >> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 23 >> >> Gary f. , list >> >> De Tienne slide 23 starts with: "BECAUSE mathematics, in principle, is >> not concerned with anything but itself. The world could stop existing, but >> to pure mathematicians that would at most be an inconvenience." >> >> This is clearly a blunder since if the world stopped existing, there >> would no more exist mathematicians at all, neither pure nor applied. >> >> It is repeated in slide 24 that you published today: "The significance >> and truth-value of such constructs [those of mathematicians] depends only >> on their *internal* inferential coherence, *not on the world of >> experience*." >> >> Writing such a definitive judgment is just ignoring the every day work of >> mathematicians who pass their time in diverses *experiments* with forms, >> abstracts figures, models, constructs, etc., not to speak of the value of >> their underlying hypotheses. >> >> The slide 23 blunder that you minimize as "a choice of language" is >> certainly a good rhetorical trick to get the laughs on one's side. But this >> is not a valid scientific argument. And since it will be repeated in the >> following slide, it has an intended purpose: to show that pure mathematics >> are internally coherent wild dreams cut off the world. >> >> In fact I think that the human ancestors of mathematics were those >> prehistoric people who managed to figure out on the walls of their caves >> the drawings of savage animals. >> >> I wish that at the end of this slow reading you will undertake the >> phaneroscopic observations of mathematicians at work, without any prejudice >> as Peirce suggested it. >> >> Bernard Morand >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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. > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_-7824581777754386308_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
