For what it may be worth, else ignore. I have just started Peter's book which is now 30 years old which seems young to me as most of mine were published before the 80's. I want to make what may be a cliched observation or a simplistic one. It seems to me we would do well to frame (at least) non-scientific inquiry not as interpretation but as use. I am serious. Interpretation is inherently unsatisfactory and need not be claimed as an objective. Use is what I think Pierce might have wanted. Meaning we do not present our thoughts as apt interpretations of Peirce or attempts to argue for this or that system. But as our own thoughts where our debt is to Peirce but our thoughts have the temerity to stand naked before whoever encounters them, to be accepted or rejected. Let them be misinterpreted as they would be anyway - inevitably. Peirce would say they are not final. Why do you think he never finished a system? Does he not leave clues? I seize on things I derive from Peirce to claim that are ideal or ontological values and to name them. And to claim that history is the cumulative exercise of willed values. And that ontological values can be experienced and when they are we make better history than when they are not. I feel the task of creating a cadre of public intellectuals (at some point) would be advanced by championing the idea that it is not the necessary function of scholars to interpret (come up with the right take on) Peirce. Perish the thought. It is tu use Peirce to take the strands and improve on them, use them, profit from them. Best, S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Peircers, > > A few reflections that I posted on Gowers's Weblog that may be pertinent > here -- > > Re: What’s wrong with electronic journals? > At: http://gowers.wordpress.com/**2012/01/29/whats-wrong-with-** > electronic-journals/<http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/whats-wrong-with-electronic-journals/> > > Having spent a good part of the 1990s writing about what the New > Millennium would bring to our intellectual endeavours, it is only fair that > I should have spent the last dozen years wondering why the New Millennium > is so late in arriving. With all due reflection I think it is time to face > up to the fact that the fault, [Dear Reader], is not in our technology, but > in ourselves. > > Here is one of my last, best attempts to get at the root of the matter: > > • > http://org.sagepub.com/**content/8/2/269.abstract<http://org.sagepub.com/content/8/2/269.abstract> > • > http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/**library/aboutcsp/awbrey/**integrat.htm<http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm> > > There are indeed Big Picture questions that open up here — the future of > knowledge and inquiry, the extent to which their progress will be catalyzed > or inhibited by collaborative versus corporate-controlled information > technologies, the stance of knowledge workers, vigilant or acquiescent, > against the ongoing march of global corporate feudalism — and maybe this is > not the place or time to pursue these questions, but in my experience > discussion, like love and gold, is where you find it. Being questions of > this magnitude, they will of course arise again. The question is — who will > settle them, and to whose satisfaction? > > Re: Abstract thoughts about online review systems > At: http://gowers.wordpress.com/**2012/02/02/abstract-thoughts-** > about-online-review-systems/<http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/abstract-thoughts-about-online-review-systems/> > > What is inquiry? And how can we tell if a potential contribution makes an > actual contribution to it? Questions like these often arise, as far as > mathematical inquiry goes, in trying to build heuristic problem solvers, > theorem-provers, and other sorts of mathematical amanuenses. > > Charles S. Peirce, who pursued the ways of inquiry more doggedly than any > thinker I have ever read, sifted the methods of “fixing belief” into four > main types — Tenacity, Authority, Plausibility (à priori pleasingness), and > full-fledged Scientific Inquiry. > > I posed the question — “What part do arguments from authority play in > mathematical reasoning?” — on MathOverFlow some time ago and received a > number of interesting answers. > > • http://mathoverflow.net/**questions/28089/what-part-do-** > arguments-from-authority-play-**in-mathematical-reasoning<http://mathoverflow.net/questions/28089/what-part-do-arguments-from-authority-play-in-mathematical-reasoning> > > Regards, > > Jon > > -- > > academia: > http://independent.academia.**edu/JonAwbrey<http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey> > inquiry list: > http://stderr.org/pipermail/**inquiry/<http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/> > mwb: > http://www.mywikibiz.com/**Directory:Jon_Awbrey<http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey> > oeiswiki: > http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:**Jon_Awbrey<http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey> > word press blog 1: > http://jonawbrey.wordpress.**com/<http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/> > word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > > ------------------------------**------------------------------** > --------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
