Gary / List:
Sorry that my posts are not better articulated. Time pressures are
many.
On May 11, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
Subject: Re: motivating force for Peirce's synthesis
From: "gnusystems" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 13:06:23 -0400
Jerry, i wonder if i can ask you to clarify your "two wide open
questions":
[[ Was the motivating force for Peirce's synthesis of his logical
system
the chemical symbol system?
What argues AGAINST this possibility? ]]
If you are really asking about motivation, then you're raising a
psychological question. Peirce was introspective enough to write about
his own motivations in a number of autobiographical texts. If he
thought
that "the chemical symbol system" was his motivation, surely he would
have said so in one of those texts.
Yes, very definitely, I am asking about possible interpretations of
the sources of his emotional outpourings.
I recognize that any human communication can be sourced in many
emotional impulses. (Do you?)
In the minds of most, I conjecture, symbol systems are so intertwined
and interlaced (for example, as found in dreams) that outsiders
(external readers) can only guess at sources of motion.
The conclusion you draw, Gray, is one of many potential readings of
his views.
Until someone can produce such
testimony from Peirce, the very absence of it argues against the
possibility -- unless you propose that Peirce may have been unaware of
his own motivation.
Are you arguing that individuals are aware of all their motivations?
Really!
Cultural symbols can become so ingrained in our mental structures
that we may not recognize them as sources of motion.
By learning foreign languages and traveling in foreign lands, we
learn to become cognizant of the openness of the concept of "source
of motion".
However, the earlier parts of your post suggest another
possibility. If
(following Peirce) we use Aristotelian terminology, a "motivation" is
the psychological equivalent of an "efficient cause"; but your
explication seems to suggest "the chemical symbol system" as a
*formal*
cause "for Peirce's synthesis." In other words, your suggestion
seems to
be that Peirce found some formal structure specific to "the chemical
symbol system" which he could then generalize to elucidate the
logic of
all sciences. Would that be an accurate paraphrase of your proposal?
No! Absolutely NOT.
Aristotelian causality is closely linked with categorizations
(classifications) Porphyrean trees and grammar.
Your conjecture is remote from my intent, but I found that it gave
insight into the mechanics of your writings.
If so, your proposal regarding Peirce's logic is even more problematic
than a proposal about his psychology. The essential form underlying
his
"logical system" was something Peirce wrote about constantly (not just
occasionally, like his motivations) -- from his 1867 paper "On a New
List of Categories" to the end of his life. If it's unlikely that he
would have been silent (or wrong) about his motivations, it's even
more
unlikely that the real basis of his semeiotic/logic would have been
other than what he said it was -- namely, his triad of categories. If
that's the real basis of it, then the logic of chemistry would be (for
Peirce) just another specific application of that generic logic,
and not
the source of it.
I have not read enough of Peirce to conjecture at all about his
mental workings.
However, I point out that numerous philosophers had produced
categorical classifications.
What, exactly, motivates the rejection of the earlier classifications
and reducing the number to three?
If the the number of classes for chemical classification were, in his
mind, exactly three, it could have provided a germ for growth of his
theory.
Now, from a chemical perspective, the issue is why does one restrict
these notion to firstness, secondness and thirdness.
Obviously, this profound conclusion came early in his life as he was
studying chemistry.
The temporal association is so strong that I look for any argument
that is strong enough to override it.
A deep and profound issue in mathematics is the issue of continuity,
or, inverted, a stopping rule.
The logic of chemistry automatically generates stopping rules, but
not always at three.
Peirce's special interest in chemistry could then be accounted for as
Max Fisch says: "Chemistry at that time offered the best entry into
experimental science in general, and was therefore the best field in
which to do one's postgraduate work, even if one intended to move
on to
other sciences and, by way of the sciences, to the logic of science
and
to logic as a whole. Moreover, chemical engineering was then the most
promising field in which to make a living by science, if one had no
opportunity to do so by pure science or by logic." Fisch makes it
quite
clear that logic itself, and not any of its applications, was seen by
Peirce himself as his destiny, from the time that he first read
Whately's _Elements of Logic_ ("within a week or two of his twelfth
birthday, in 1851"). "Since that time, he often said late in life, it
had never been possible for him to think of anything, including even
chemistry, except as an exercise in logic. And so far as he knew,
he was
the only man since the Middle Ages who had completely devoted his life
to logic." There is nothing here to indicate that his either his logic
or his devotion to it stemmed from his studies in chemistry.
I have not read Max Fisch.
But, chemical engineering did not exist as a discipline at that time.
"Engineering", such as it was, was a generic discipline. General
problem solvers.
Leibneiz was also an engineer in his early career. Applied
mathematics and machines.
If this analysis is accurate, then it's up to you to demonstrate, from
Peirce's own texts, evidence that "the motivating force for Peirce's
synthesis of his logical system" was "the chemical symbol system".
Since
this would run very much against the grain of Peirce's general
testimony, what need is there for anyone to argue AGAINST it?
My conjecture is merely a conjecture.
Proof?
You got to be joking.
In the year 2006, I doubt that anyone can transpose themselves into
the cultural mindset of language, belief and social relations that
existed 150 years.
Let me emphasize again that i'm not trying to offer an answer to your
questions -- i'll leave that to those with more authority and
expertise
in Peirce's writings than i can claim. I'm merely asking for
clarification by trying to show why it's needed.
It certainly is not "needed".
My objective is to understand chemical logic.
If Peirce has a general logic, then it should be applicable to
logical problems in modern chemistry, much as Aristotlian syllogisms.
Now, chemical logic is intimately relationed to Porphyrean trees and
a special grammar that relates nouns to nouns.
The chemical question is, is the proposal of a chemist for a
generalized logic consistent with chemical logic?
(BTW, Leibneiz's logical calculations appear to be related to his
work in chemistry.)
Now, this question may be irrelevant to the interests of philosophers
in general and to other members of this list. But, to me, it is
important.
Why is this important?
One example is given.
Prigogine claimed a chemical foundation for his views on time.
In fact, Prigogine worked strictly from classical mathematics
(differential equations).
He excluded chemical logic from his thinking. He introduces time in
terms of rate of entropy production.
When I attempted to address these issues with him, in an every so
gentle way, after a few minutes, he surmised the direction of the
conversation and shortly thereafter, terminated it.
Other examples could be given, for example, explication of the logics
of genetics or metabolism.
Finally, I have often made the mental error of thinking that I
understood something and "closed the file." Nearly always, it was a
mistake to close a file.
Do open minds require open files in order to open new ideas?
I will end with another open question:
Can anyone explicate a symbol for time in terms of Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness?
Cheers
Jerry
gary F.
}Every man is tasked to make his life, even in its details, worthy of
the contemplation of his most elevated and critical hour. [Thoreau]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
Jerry LR Chandler
Research Professor
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
George Mason University
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
