Helmut, list It wasn't what I was going for, but it is a metaphysical proof, so it will share characteristics of arguments such as that, I suppose (thing in itself being "noumenal").
Best Jack ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 7:55 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference). List, I have not fully understood the proof of the thing in itself, but it seems to me, that it is formally the same or similar as Anselm of Canterbury`s proof of God. Is that so? Best, Helmut Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Mai 2023 um 05:16 Uhr Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> An: "Peirce-L" <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference). Jack, List: Infinite, continuous, and recursive are not synonymous. Gödel's incompleteness theorems pertain only to axiomatic formal systems of mathematical logic. The term "value" is vague and still lacks a rigorous definition for how it is being used in this particular context. No one is denying "representational inadequacy across all [actual] representative schemas," just the additional claim that the thing in itself is unknowable in principle. In short, I cannot "analyze the logical form" of the alleged "proof" as requested because I still do not see a coherent argumentation being presented. What are the premisses, and what conclusions are being drawn from them? Please be specific and explicit. Regards, Jon On Mon, May 22, 2023, 5:50 PM JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Jon, List, I disagree that the premise is false. If you look at the logic, (the formalism), it is of the continua. It is infinite - continuous - in its recursive form. Not tautological, as in that order of "entailment", but infinite (perpetuating). Comes with the Kantian price - it, objectivity, only functions, and it does, function, (very precisely), if we admit the thing in itself. Now, from within the "ontological continua", Godel's incompleteness resounds for representational inadequacy is that wherein representation itself, now, is questioned. That is Hume's "value" here. The result is no single value can be given to a single element consistently (for there exist competing "values" just as worthy for every instance). Thus, is the Bird's value for Snail or the Human's value for Snail (situational - in each instance, for birds may fly past snails and pick a worm, instead, and the naturalist is not the chef), THE value of that organism as element? Or salt, in precisely the same formal series? Attached to snail, even. Continua, style. Now, given infinite time, how should birds and snails and humans all agree? Absurd? Hardly, for it is metaphysic which Peirce admits - is true regardless of what any individual thinks of it - but then compromises via "final interpretant". That is, the thing in itself is admitted and then denied. JAS: In other words, the indeterminacy and fallibility of our current representations of real objects does not entail that complete and accurate representations of real objects are impossible in principle. Again, claiming such an entailment blocks the way of inquiry by imposing an artificial and unjustifiable limitation on the ongoing quest for knowledge It's not indeterminacy or fallibility but a determined human representative value which clashes with ontological common sense (via logical formalism, not just arbitrary). It proves representational inadequacy across all representative schemas. Which, in my opinion, is of representation (mediation sui generis). A "raised" (meta) claim regarding representation itself from within all systems which, if true, and I contend it is whilst remaining open to logical refutation (formally), then hardly constitutes a fetter upon inquiry but must necessitate a step forward. You see at once the usefulness of Peirce - for naturalists/but all manners of disciplines (particle physics/computation/etc.) - in this series (i)f you acknowledge the "limitation" which is no "limitation" if it be actually true. Does not having wings correspond to a limitation? Or is it just that which prevents me from jumping off a tree and hoping to fly? I would just ask serious logicians, of which you are one, as far as I know (for I have read your materials, and commend them), to analyze the logical form. To disregard the Peircean for a moment and then re-insert it after (and see where the cookie crumbles). For I do not throw Peirce away, I very much retain large amounts of his schema - indeed, the entire premise is Peircean motivated, I just think he has it wrong regarding the thing in itself (and think, moreover, that it has been proven). That is - and this is not aimed at you - rather than pick a summary here or a quotative there, what I seek is analysis of the logical series and an alternative. For I know not else how to go about weighing proofs or alleged proofs. We must disregard the terminologies of any given philosopher - suspend it for a time - until the logical form is dealt with and then see which schema, tradition, personage, best accommodates the result. Best Jack _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
