Gary F, List, GF: we agree that De Tiennes reference to a transition out of mathematics in slide 25 can be confusing, and you say that we can avoid the confusion by adopting the word 'diagram' for ADT's slide 25. ... Do you mean substituting the word diagram for some part of slide 25? Yes, but first I'll cite the following quotation, which shows that Peirce had a very broad idea of what a diagram could be: CSP: an algebraist like Boole plainly thought in algebraic symbols; and so did I, until, at great pains, I learned to think in diagrams, which is a much superior method. I am convinced there is a far better one, capable of wonders; but the great cost of the apparatus forbids my learning it. It consists in thinking in stereoscopic moving pictures. Of course one might substitute the real objects moving in solid space; and that might not be so very unreasonably costly. (NEM 3:191, L231 1911) This is the same MS in which he presented his 1911 EGs, and he is already thinking of going beyond the two-dimensional versions to stereoscopic moving images. That would be an excellent generalization for phaneroscopy. It would support a more complete and more precise mapping. In the last sentence, he also talks about "real objects moving in solid space". That would support the full mapping from perception to 3D moving diagrams to action in and on the physical world. In today's terminology, Peirce anticipated computational methods for virtual reality. If we assume the option of generalizing EGs beyond two dimensions, they would be (a) mathematical, (b) visual, and (c) directly mappable to and from moving 3-D experiences and actions. I presented a talk along those lines at a Peirce session of an APA conference in April 2015. In December 2015, I presented an updated version at a workshop that Zalamea hosted in Bogota. In 2018, the Journal of Applied Logics published an issue that contained papers based on those talks. Following are my slides from Bpgpta; slide 2 has the URL of the journal issue: http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf Following are the revisions I'd sugest for slide 25: 1. For the first bullet item, replace the clause that begins with "we cannot count..." with "the phenomenologist must map any mathematical interpretation to a diagram that can help us figure out what goes on in experience. 2. Bullet item #2 is OK as is. 3. For the third, replace the clause that begins "how do we..." with "how do we relate the initial diagram to diarams or other representations of the conditions sustaining the cosmos, the world, nature." For these three points, I tried to leave as much of ADT's words as I could while keeping the word 'diagram' and any mathematical interpretation or reasoning that may require it.. John ---------------------------- ADT: Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in experience. Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage. We want to sort out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises and disguises. As a point of method, however, given that mathematics is the first stage of research in the heuristic schema, how do we transition out of it into a concern no longer detached from but attached to the condiions sustaining the cosmos, the world, nature,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
