John Collier wrote:
JC: This is interesting, Gary. I have a draft
of Chapter 1 of Arnold's
thesis, which is definitely not ready for publication, plus I have a
final version of his thesis project when he died. This is fairly
complete, as I recall, but I will need to look at it again.
I hope that if you deem the thesis project as ready for publication
that you'll make it available on the Arisbe site. Even if it is not, I
would be personally quite interested in seeing it as well as the draft
of the thesis chapter (if you would feel comfortable sending either or
both of them to me). I am currently rereading many of Arnold's posts to
the list (unfortunate I only have those since 730/04) and finding
considerable riches there.
JC: I remember
the day I became convinced that Arnold really was on to something -- it
was talking to him after I read this version of his proposal. Mostly,
since then I was just getting him to be familiar with recent relevant
work by philosophers on conventions. He found chapter 2 of Ruth
Millikan's recent book, Language: A Biological Model very
supportive of his approach, but diverging in the emphasis on the
origins
-- not on the historical aspect.
I'm not familiar with Millikan's work, but will take a look at the
chapter you mentioned. I too am "convinced that Arnold really was on to
something" and would hope to try to grasp at least a little of where
this "something" was headed
Best,
Gary
At 04:27 PM 9/30/2006, Gary Richmond wrote:
John and Peirce list,
This is very shocking and sad news of the loss of a fine scholar and,
in
my estimation, a great soul. Over the years Arnold and I had a number
of
fruitful email exchanges on Peirce-l and privately. Late last year he
sent me a report which included analyses relating to the theme you
mentioned in your note to the Peirce list. You wrote:
[JC] Arnold was well
on his way
to giving a Peircean response to Arrow's paradox of social choice by
rejecting Arrow's explicitly nominalist assumptions on ordering, using
the idea of sequence instead, as found in Peirce.
Arnold
attached the paper to an off-list note which included these
comments:
Your mail discussing logica docens and logica utens in the
classification of the sciences rang a bell for me [. . .] Earlier
this year I completed a longish
report on the problem of research policy in occupational health and
safety in mining, in which, amongst other topics, I considered the
role of the docens-utens classification in the process of evaluating
research proposals in this field. Given that you have brought the
subject up, but not anticipating any general interest on the list in
my going-on about committees and research (about which Winston
Churchill had some rather acerbic opinions, BTW), I thought I'd send
you a PDF of the report just for something to read over the
mid-semester break.
. . I left out the second Appendix because that's available in the
Intelex CP (it's CSP's Note on the Economy of
Research).
In
another email earlier this year Arnold wrote that he wanted "to
rewrite the report to take greater account of the Impossibility
Tradition
in economics (Kenneth Arrow, Amartya K Sen, and others), with a view to
exploring ways that the logic of relations in this tradition might
benefit from an explicitly Peircean reworking of the topic" Do
you know if a completed version of the paper Arnold was working on is
available, John? If so, would it be possible to make it available
(perhaps Joe Ransdell could put it on Arisbe)?
This is interesting, Gary. I have a draft of Chapter 1 of Arnold's
thesis, which is definitely not ready for publication, plus I have a
final version of his thesis project when he died. This is fairly
complete, as I recall, but I will need to look at it again. I remember
the day I became convinced that Arnold really was on to something -- it
was talking to him after I read this version of his proposal. Mostly,
since then I was just getting him to be familiar with recent relevant
work by philosophers on conventions. He found chapter 2 of Ruth
Millikan's recent book, Language: A Biological Model very
supportive of his approach, but diverging in the emphasis on the
origins
-- not on the historical aspect.
Cheers,
John
Professor John
Collier
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South
Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F:
+27 (31) 260 3031
http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
|