Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Auke, List:

That is my concise summary of my understanding of Peirce's opinion as
expressed in his writings.  I provided some supporting quotes in this same
thread a few days ago, as follows (Robert, please forgive the repetition).

RM:  A sign is always a real thing that represents because to be sign it
must be perceived


JAS:  This assertion also directly contradicts Peirce's plain statement
that "If a sign has no interpreter, its interpretant is a 'would be,' i.e.,
is what it *would* determine in the interpreter if there were one" (EP
2:409, 1907).  Something need not be perceived in order to qualify as a
sign, as long as it is *capable *of determining a dynamical interpretant by
virtue of having an immediate interpretant, "its peculiar Interpretability
before it gets any Interpreter" (SS 111, 1909), and a final interpretant,
"the effect the Sign *would *produce upon any mind upon which circumstances
should permit it to work out its full effect" (SS 110, 1909).


 In fact, several years earlier Peirce already seems to recognize that
an *actual
*interpretant is not necessary, instead repeatedly calling it merely
"possible."

CSP:  A *Representamen *is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the
Second Correlate being termed its *Object*, and the *possible *Third
Correlate being termed its *Interpretant*, by which triadic relation
the *possible
*Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic
relation to the same Object, and for some *possible *Interpretant. (CP , EP
2:290, 1903, bold added)


Later he explicitly affirms that "there must be a sign without an utterer
and a sign without an interpreter" (EP 2:404, 1907).  Kinds of "signs
without utterers" include "symptoms of disease, signs of the weather,
groups of experiences serving as premisses, etc."  "Signs without
interpreters" include pictures woven by a Jacquard loom that catch fire and
are "consumed before anyone can see them," "conditions and results" of
experiments with model boats that are "automatically recorded" but "nobody
takes the trouble to study," and "the books of a bank" when a balance sheet
is not drawn up from them.  An example of my own is that ripples on
the surface of a remote lake at night are a sign of the direction of the
wind, despite there being no one there to observe them.

Consequently, "neither an utterer, nor even, perhaps, an interpreter is
essential to a sign" (ibid).  Peirce proceeds to "inquire whether there be
not some ingredient of the utterer and some ingredient of the interpreter
which not only are so essential, but are even more characteristic of signs
than the utterer and the interpreter themselves."  He takes several pages
to identify the essential ingredient of the utterer as the *object *(EP
2:404-409) and just two paragraphs to identify the essential ingredient of
the interpreter as the *interpretant *(EP 2:409-410).  Every sign has a
conditionally necessary (final) interpretant, and thus a possible
(immediate) interpretant, even if it never has an actual (dynamical)
interpretant because there does not happen to be an interpreter present to
be determined by it.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 3:59 AM Auke van Breemen 
wrote:

> Jon Alen,
>
> Is this your opinion or Peirce's?
>
> Moreover, my point continues to be that it is not necessary for something
> to be *actually *perceived in order to qualify as a sign.  It is
> sufficient that (1) it *may *determine a dynamical interpretant under
> various circumstances by virtue of having an *immediate *interpretant,
> and (2) it *would *determine a dynamical interpretant under ideal
> circumstances by virtue of having a *final *interpretant.
>
> I am particular interested in where to find the source.
>
> best,
>
> Auke
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



I have tried to stay quiet but this statement really offends me:



“So now I will tell you what nobody has told you before this;

*that we older folks are waiting for you*.”



It is as though the older folk have forgotten their obligation to address
the following criticism:



'Why doth he not come who hath so long announced himself?'

thus do many people ask;

'hath solitude swallowed him up? Or should we perhaps go to him?'

For

There are Two Causes of Sin, Ignorance and Weakness;
And We need Divine Help to Overcome Both



There are two causes that lead to sin:
either we do not yet know our duty,
or we do not perform the duty that we know.

___



All this talk about esthetics ethics logic and normative sciences..

Is it not obvious that Peirce was incompetent for the task imposed upon him
of defining the esthetically good?

For if he had, then it would be just as obvious that we would recognize and
communicate it.

For are we not, *already*, the moral community?
I mean, what other reason is there for the surprising fact, that



America today has largely abandoned what might be called the normative
trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic -- Peirce's three Normative
Sciences



To the question, then, for

"*Why then had it not been put to its serious use?"*

No reason can be given, except that the motive to do so was not strong
enough.
The motives to doing so could *only* have been desire for gain and
philanthropy.



*The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, *

*or the Greatest Happiness Principle, *

*holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, *

*wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. *

*By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; *

*by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.  *

*The pursuit of pleasure and *the avoidance of pain* motivate all our
actions.*



*The initial question,*
*“Why does cognition sometimes lead to action and sometimes not?”*
*should be understood to demand the answer that the syllogistic examples
will provide: because sometimes there are present both a desire for the
apprehended goal and a cognitive specification of what must be done if the
goal is to be reached, and sometimes not.*



“as I was saying all along, in respect to these matters I go astray, up and
down, and never hold the same opinion; and that I, or any other ordinary
man, go astray is not surprising;



but if you wise men likewise go astray, that is a terrible thing for us
also,

if even when we have come to you we are not to cease from our straying.”



*From A Little Known Argument for the Being of God to A Neglected Argument
for the Reality of God*



So that this is not yet ‘another’ kind of criticism put forth by the likes
of Mrs. Bell to Emerson,

I would demand of the older folk, then, to



*summarize the article in a concluding page or two, to be added to the
article, in order to forestall careless cavillers who might say, *

*Œwhat, then, precisely, is your neglected argument?'"*





With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 1:24 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> My good friend, Joseph Dauben, Distinguished Professor at the Graduate
> Center of The City University of New York/Lehman College, whose research
> interests include History of Science and History of Mathematics, wrote in
> response to my initial post in this thread:
>
> Many thanks for your very insightful observations. When I read what you've
> written, I immediately thought of the graduation speech E.L. Doctorow
> gave at his own alma mater, the Bronx HS of Science, a few years ago. You
> may well already have seen this, but if not, I think you’ll find what he
> had to say of interest.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/nyregion/el-doctorow-graduation-speech-bronx-science.html
>
>
> While the entire piece is of interest (in a subsequent email, Joe remarked
> how he ". . . especially liked how Doctorow foiled the chemistry class
> experiment. He really wasn't so bad at chemistry after all!"), I've
> excerpted a quote from its conclusion as being of particular relevance to
> this thread. Doctorow writes:
>
> I’m thinking now of the principal at Science in my day, Dr. Morris Meister
> .
> I remember that he said about scientific knowledge that in the passage of
> time, it was like a searchlight beam expanding and lighting up more and
> more of the darkness. But as it did, he said, so did the circumference of
> darkness expand. That’s a pretty good line, don’t you think? As the light
> spreads out so does it discern more and more of the darkness. Actually this
> may have been said first by Albert Einstein, but no matter.
>
> The human quest for knowledge, for knowing everything there is to know,
> will always face that expanding circumference of darkness. That is what
> makes learning such an 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Pragmatic Trivium

[Gary Richmond]

Gary F, List,

As you know, I greatly admire your book,*Turning Signs*, and have
recommended it (and your blog) on the List. However, as mentioned earlier,
I'm going to refrain from commenting -- at least much -- on posts for a few
days, thus allowing others to post or, if they wish, respond to messages
already posted.

However, I just went to the link you provided to Chapter 16 of *Turning
Sign* http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/prx.htm and reread the section titled
'Pragmatism'. I would like to suggest that those who want to quickly get to
the heart of that rich chapter as it pertains to the question of pragmatism
which I asked at the end of my initial post in this thread, begin with
Section 5, 'Pragmatism'  and read through section 6, 'The practice of
inquiry' as well. Besides your insightful analysis of the question, they
will be immediately treated to some very pertinent quotations by Peirce
(and James).

Of course this is not to suggest that the earlier and final sections of
that chapter aren't relevant and of considerable interest, but that this
might be a *most *efficient approach to commence reading the chapter in
consideration of my question.

Best,

Gary R

"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*








Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:52 AM  wrote:

> Gary R (and list),
>
> The question you pose at the end of your post is a big one, and my answer
> is embedded in Chapter 16 of *Turning Signs*,
> http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/prx.htm . Of course there’s always room for
> improvement (or at least refinement) in anyone’s answer to such a question,
> so I look forward to reading the answers put forward by others. I should
> mention, though, that I’m not so concerned with the emergence from the
> current pandemic as I am with how we can live through the larger and
> intertwined crises of energy, ecology, economy and social equity. That’s
> what I’m blogging about (on those rare days when I seem to have something
> original to say).
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> } The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the
> easiest person to fool. [Richard P. Feynman] {
>
> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the transition
>
>
>
> *From:* Gary Richmond 
> *Sent:* 13-Jun-20 16:04
> *To:* Peirce-L 
> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] The Pragmatic Trivium
>
>
>
> List,
>
>
>
> In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" (
> https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb), Frank Bruni reflects on something I've
> been informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for years;
> namely, that "A society without a grounding in ethics, self-reflection,
> empathy and beauty is one that has lost its way” (Brian Rosenberg, recently 
> president
> of Macalester College). It seems to me that this has happened in the United
> States.
>
>
>
> It has long seemed to me that America today has largely abandoned what
> might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic --
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences, *not* the classical trivium (for which
> see Sister Miriam Joseph
> 's 2002 book, *The
> Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric*) that he
> generalized to serve as the three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.
>
>
>
> This philosophical trivium points to the possible *application *of
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences -- not their theoretical forms, but
> rather their ordinary and potentially pragmatic guises as they appear in
> life practice, including reflection and action upon what is beautiful in
> art and nature, what is ethical in our behavior in the world, and how we
> can apply 'critical commonsenseism' in our quotidian lives. Bruni writes: "We
> need writers, philosophers, historians. They’ll be the ones to chart the
> social, cultural and political challenges of this pandemic -- and of all
> the other dynamics that have pushed the United States so harrowingly close
> to the edge. In terms of restoring faith in the American project and
> reseeding common ground, they’re beyond essential."
>
>
>
> Bruni's op-ed reflection came in part in response to a recent article by
> Rosenberg in *The Chronicle of Higher Education*; see "How Should
> Colleges Prepare for a Post-Pandemic World" (
> https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Should-Colleges-Prepare/248507).
> Rosenberg writes: “If one were to invent a crisis uniquely and diabolically
> designed to undermine the foundations of traditional colleges and
> universities, it might look very much like the current global pandemic.” In
> a similar vein, Professor Andrew Belbanco, president of the Teagle

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs • 32
At: 
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/14/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-32/

Re: R.J. Lipton and K.W. Regan
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/about-me/
::: Proof Checking
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2020/06/13/proof-checking-not-line-by-line/

Here's a place where I explore several different shapes of proofs within propositional calculus deriving from the 
graphical systems of Charles S. Peirce and G. Spencer Brown.


• Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems • Analysis of Contingent Propositions
https://oeis.org/wiki/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems#Analysis_of_contingent_propositions

I don't know whether that helps any with P ≟ NP but it does supply a lot of 
nice pictures to contemplate.

Resources
=

• Logical Graphs
https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs

• Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems
https://oeis.org/wiki/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The Pragmatic Trivium

[gnox]

Gary R (and list),

The question you pose at the end of your post is a big one, and my answer is 
embedded in Chapter 16 of Turning Signs, http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/prx.htm . 
Of course there’s always room for improvement (or at least refinement) in 
anyone’s answer to such a question, so I look forward to reading the answers 
put forward by others. I should mention, though, that I’m not so concerned with 
the emergence from the current pandemic as I am with how we can live through 
the larger and intertwined crises of energy, ecology, economy and social 
equity. That’s what I’m blogging about (on those rare days when I seem to have 
something original to say).

Gary f.

 

} The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the 
easiest person to fool. [Richard P. Feynman] {

  http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the transition 

 

From: Gary Richmond  
Sent: 13-Jun-20 16:04
To: Peirce-L 
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] The Pragmatic Trivium

 

List,

 

In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" 
(https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb), Frank Bruni reflects on something I've been 
informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for years; namely, that 
"A society without a grounding in ethics, self-reflection, empathy and beauty 
is one that has lost its way” (Brian Rosenberg, recently president of 
Macalester College). It seems to me that this has happened in the United States.

 

It has long seemed to me that America today has largely abandoned what might be 
called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic -- Peirce's three 
Normative Sciences, not the classical trivium (for which see  
 Sister Miriam Joseph's 
2002 book, The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric) that 
he generalized to serve as the three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.

 

This philosophical trivium points to the possible application of Peirce's three 
Normative Sciences -- not their theoretical forms, but rather their ordinary 
and potentially pragmatic guises as they appear in life practice, including 
reflection and action upon what is beautiful in art and nature, what is ethical 
in our behavior in the world, and how we can apply 'critical commonsenseism' in 
our quotidian lives. Bruni writes: "We need writers, philosophers, historians. 
They’ll be the ones to chart the social, cultural and political challenges of 
this pandemic -- and of all the other dynamics that have pushed the United 
States so harrowingly close to the edge. In terms of restoring faith in the 
American project and reseeding common ground, they’re beyond essential."

 

Bruni's op-ed reflection came in part in response to a recent article by 
Rosenberg in The Chronicle of Higher Education; see "How Should Colleges 
Prepare for a Post-Pandemic World" 
(https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Should-Colleges-Prepare/248507). 
Rosenberg writes: “If one were to invent a crisis uniquely and diabolically 
designed to undermine the foundations of traditional colleges and universities, 
it might look very much like the current global pandemic.” In a similar vein, 
Professor Andrew Belbanco, president of the Teagle Foundation which gives as 
its purpose promoting the liberal arts, writes: “This is not only a public 
health crisis and an economic crisis, though Lord knows it’s both of those. 
It’s also a values crisis. It raises all kinds of deep human questions: What 
are our responsibilities to other people? Does representative democracy work? 
How do we get to a place where something like bipartisanship could emerge 
again?”

 

Commenting on the economic divide of the American university, Bruni notes that 
"the already pronounced divide between richly endowed, largely residential 
schools and more socioeconomically diverse ones that depend on public funding 
grows wider as state and local governments face unprecedented financial 
distress. A shrinking minority of students get a boutique college experience. 
Then there’s everybody else."  Gail Mellow, former president of LaGuardia 
College of the City University of New York (where I taught for decades before 
my retirement) is quoted as saying, “We always knew that America was moving 
more and more toward very different groups of people," to which Bruni adds, 
"that movement is only accelerating."

 

Confronting all this will undoubtedly be one of the great challenges that 
America -- and for that matter, the world -- will have in the years and decades 
to come. The question I pose is: Can Peirce's version of pragmatism (or 
pragmaticism) -- which he also calls 'critical commonsenseism' -- creatively 
contribute to these enormous challenges? And, if so, how? And are there ways in 
which Peirce's philosophical trivium might help inform the aesthetics, ethics, 
and critical thinking of the world as it emerges from the coronavirus pandemic? 
If so, how?

 

[Note: I have Bcc'd