Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Gary Richmond]

erratum

"JAS: And he [Peirce] repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base
their
reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams. "

The quote is of JFS, John Sowa, not JAS, Jon Alan Schmidt.

GR

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

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







On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> John, List,
>
> Diagrams are *signs *(3ns). In the 10-fold classification of signs
> Peirce's examples of two of the ten classes references diagrams: class 2,
> the rhematic iconic sinsign -- example: "an individual diagram" (CP 2.255);
> class 5, the (rhematic) iconic legisign -- example: "a diagram, apart from
> its factual individuality" (CP 2.258), that is, the diagram as a type.
>
> One can certainly imagine diagrams being 'observed' in given phanerons
> *qua* signs; and one can also quite easily and naturally see their being
> employed to *explicate* the observation of not only signs (3ns), but of
> the other two categories (1ns & 2ns) as well as of all three taken together
> -- as they always do appear in the phaneron before any precisive
> abstraction has taken place. On the other hand, "qualitative possibility"
> is suited much more specifically to phenomenology.
>
> JAS: And he [Peirce] repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base
> their
> reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.
>
> Besides the fact that we are ostensibly discussing phenomenology, the
> first of the cenoscopic sciences and *not* metaphysics, the very last of
> them in Peirce's classification of sciences, it has been argued here by
> just about everyone (*if* not everyone) that mathematics and logic do
> indeed have important roles to play in the development of phenomenology
> and, I would add, in the explication of its findings.
>
> But it has also been strenuously argued that mathematics and logic (and
> diagrams) should not and, in truth, *cannot* replace the specific methods
> and observed content of the science of phaneroscopy. Arguments to the
> contrary here continue to conflate the *role* and *value* of mathematics
> and logic in phenomenology with phenomenology itself. That is an error
> which no phenomenologist, such as De Tienne, would ever make, while those
> who make it appear to me to be much more lacking in aptitude and
> competence in phaneroscopy than De Tienne is in mathematics and logic. The
> attempt to reduce phaneroscopy to the latter is sure to fail on Peircean
> principles.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_6606455968471705719_m_-8308195017208817267_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:39 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:
>
>> Gary R, List,
>>
>> I have a high regard for ADT's expertise about Peirce's entire body of
>> work and his understanding of the interconnections and developments
>> over the years.  But ADT is not a mathematician or logician, and
>> Peirce was.
>>
>> GR:  But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it
>> merely expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your
>> many, many years concerning yourself with diagrams:  EGs and the CGs
>> based on them, etc.
>>
>> That is just your opinion.  Peirce repeatedly emphasized the role of
>> mathematics, logic, and diagrammatic reasoning throughout his career.
>> And he repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base their
>> reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.  Please check CP for the
>> 358 occurrences the word 'diagram' (with various endings).
>>
>> For more about diagrammatic reasoning, with quotations from other
>> mathematicians from Euclid and Archimedes to the present, please see
>> the first ten slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf
>>
>> See below for my recommended change to ADT's slide 25.  In making that
>> revision, I am not challenging ADT's knowledge of Peirce's writings in
>> general, but I am claiming that he did not understand the math.
>>
>> John
>>
>> 
>>
>> The original slide 25 by ADT:
>>
>> • Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we
>> cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in
>> experience.
>>
>> • Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
>> figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
>> want to sort out its laws, its 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Gary Richmond]

Helmut, List,

Thanks for the clarification.

As I recall, just before we began this slow read I suggested, as I have in
past slow reads, that for the integrity of especially the archives of the
read that it would probably be best not to change the subject line; but it
was just a suggestion and there is no blame.

I long ago learned that members of Peirce-L will do whatever they wish to
do whatever I as List moderator might suggest. For the most part I'm ok
with that.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

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







On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:03 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Gary, Gary, John, List,
>
> That wasnt John but me, who changed the subject line. Just so you dont
> blame John!
>
> Best, Helmut
>
>
>  24. August 2021 um 07:01 Uhr
>  "Gary Richmond" 
> wrote:
> Gary F, John, List,
>
> JFS wrote:
>
> Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
> slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.
>
> I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but
> it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.
>
> But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it merely
> expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your many, many
> years concerning yourself with diagrams: EGs and the CGs based on them,
> etc.
>
> 'Diagram' has connotations and meaning applications which extend far
> beyond "qualitative possibility" so that the term is, in my opinion, at
> very least confusing *in this context* because of that. Despite Peirce's
> broad definition of 'diagram' I see no reason why it should be considered
> "the best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and
> continuing in other slides as well." As I see it this is just more of your
> valorizing mathematics and glossing over and trivializing phenomenology,
> neither one being well-served in the present context nor expressing
> Peirce's view of the matter.
>
>  "Qualitative possibility" is Peirce's expression with specific
> application to phaneroscopy/phenomenology and, indeed, your thread
> "possibility" has little to nothing to do with phaneroscopy, so it's quite
> appropriate (and telling) that you changed the Subject line.
>
> Meanwhile, if there are any scholars who have made a serious study of
> Peirce's phenomenology they certainly include Andre De Tienne whose
> dissertation already took up the topic in some depth. And this is one of
> the reasons that he was a major consultant in the development of Richard
> Kenneth Atkins recent monograph, *Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology:
> Analysis and Consciousness*.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>   “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:26 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:
>
>> Gary F, Helmut, Jerry, List,
>>
>> Thanks, Gary, for that quotation.  I often search CP and EP before
>> commenting on Peirce's terms, and I admit that I should have done
>> that.  I agree that in Peirce's quotation for "positive qualitative
>> possibility", it is a useful term -- especially in the context of three
>> modes of being.
>>
>> CSP:  They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the
>> being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in
>> the future.  (CP 1.23)
>>
>> But in the context of ATD's slide 25 (and later), the word 'diagram'
>> is a kind of "positive qualitative possibility" that is (1) an icon,
>> (2) a general way of representing mathematical structures and
>> patterns, (3) a basis for necessary (mathematical) reasoning, (4) a
>> representation suitable for analogies and metaphors, and (5) an
>> essential step in mappings to an open-ended variety of other
>> representations, including algebraic notations, images of any kind,
>> and the ordinary languages that people speak and write.
>>
>> Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
>> slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.
>>
>> I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but
>> it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.
>>
>> John
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> ► 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Gary Richmond]

John, List,

Diagrams are *signs *(3ns). In the 10-fold classification of signs Peirce's
examples of two of the ten classes references diagrams: class 2, the
rhematic iconic sinsign -- example: "an individual diagram" (CP 2.255);
class 5, the (rhematic) iconic legisign -- example: "a diagram, apart from
its factual individuality" (CP 2.258), that is, the diagram as a type.

One can certainly imagine diagrams being 'observed' in given phanerons *qua*
signs; and one can also quite easily and naturally see their being employed
to *explicate* the observation of not only signs (3ns), but of the other
two categories (1ns & 2ns) as well as of all three taken together -- as
they always do appear in the phaneron before any precisive abstraction has
taken place. On the other hand, "qualitative possibility" is suited much
more specifically to phenomenology.

JAS: And he [Peirce] repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base
their
reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.

Besides the fact that we are ostensibly discussing phenomenology, the first
of the cenoscopic sciences and *not* metaphysics, the very last of them in
Peirce's classification of sciences, it has been argued here by just about
everyone (*if* not everyone) that mathematics and logic do indeed have
important roles to play in the development of phenomenology and, I would
add, in the explication of its findings.

But it has also been strenuously argued that mathematics and logic (and
diagrams) should not and, in truth, *cannot* replace the specific methods
and observed content of the science of phaneroscopy. Arguments to the
contrary here continue to conflate the *role* and *value* of mathematics
and logic in phenomenology with phenomenology itself. That is an error
which no phenomenologist, such as De Tienne, would ever make, while those
who make it appear to me to be much more lacking in aptitude and
competence in phaneroscopy than De Tienne is in mathematics and logic. The
attempt to reduce phaneroscopy to the latter is sure to fail on Peircean
principles.

Best,

Gary R


“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

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








Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#m_-8308195017208817267_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:39 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Gary R, List,
>
> I have a high regard for ADT's expertise about Peirce's entire body of
> work and his understanding of the interconnections and developments
> over the years.  But ADT is not a mathematician or logician, and
> Peirce was.
>
> GR:  But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it
> merely expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your
> many, many years concerning yourself with diagrams:  EGs and the CGs
> based on them, etc.
>
> That is just your opinion.  Peirce repeatedly emphasized the role of
> mathematics, logic, and diagrammatic reasoning throughout his career.
> And he repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base their
> reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.  Please check CP for the
> 358 occurrences the word 'diagram' (with various endings).
>
> For more about diagrammatic reasoning, with quotations from other
> mathematicians from Euclid and Archimedes to the present, please see
> the first ten slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf
>
> See below for my recommended change to ADT's slide 25.  In making that
> revision, I am not challenging ADT's knowledge of Peirce's writings in
> general, but I am claiming that he did not understand the math.
>
> John
>
> 
>
> The original slide 25 by ADT:
>
> • Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we
> cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in
> experience.
>
> • Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
> figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
> want to sort out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises
> and disguises.
>
> • As a point of method, however, given that mathematics is the “first”
> stage of research in the heuristic schema, how do we transition out of
> it into a concern no longer detached from but attached to the
> conditions sustaining the cosmos, the world, nature,
>
> 
>
> A revised version of slide 25 suggested by JFS:
>
> • Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, the
> phenomenologist must map any mathematical interpretation to a diagram
> that can help us figure out what goes on in experience.
>
> • Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
> 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Helmut Raulien]

Gary, Gary, John, List,

 

That wasnt John but me, who changed the subject line. Just so you dont blame John!

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

 24. August 2021 um 07:01 Uhr
 "Gary Richmond" 
wrote:







Gary F, John, List,

 

JFS wrote:





Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.





I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.





But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it merely expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your many, many years concerning yourself with diagrams: EGs and the CGs based on them, etc. 

 

'Diagram' has connotations and meaning applications which extend far beyond "qualitative possibility" so that the term is, in my opinion, at very least confusing in this context because of that. Despite Peirce's broad definition of 'diagram' I see no reason why it should be considered "the best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well." As I see it this is just more of your valorizing mathematics and glossing over and trivializing phenomenology, neither one being well-served in the present context nor expressing Peirce's view of the matter. 

 

 "Qualitative possibility" is Peirce's _expression_ with specific application to phaneroscopy/phenomenology and, indeed, your thread "possibility" has little to nothing to do with phaneroscopy, so it's quite appropriate (and telling) that you changed the Subject line.

 

Meanwhile, if there are any scholars who have made a serious study of Peirce's phenomenology they certainly include Andre De Tienne whose dissertation already took up the topic in some depth. And this is one of the reasons that he was a major consultant in the development of Richard Kenneth Atkins recent monograph, Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology: Analysis and Consciousness.

 

Best,

 

Gary R


















 

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

 

Gary Richmond

Philosophy and Critical Thinking

Communication Studies

LaGuardia College of the City University of New York





 

















 

	
		
			
			Virus-free. www.avg.com
		
	



 


On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:26 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:


Gary F, Helmut, Jerry, List,

Thanks, Gary, for that quotation.  I often search CP and EP before
commenting on Peirce's terms, and I admit that I should have done
that.  I agree that in Peirce's quotation for "positive qualitative
possibility", it is a useful term -- especially in the context of three
modes of being.

CSP:  They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the
being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in
the future.  (CP 1.23)

But in the context of ATD's slide 25 (and later), the word 'diagram'
is a kind of "positive qualitative possibility" that is (1) an icon,
(2) a general way of representing mathematical structures and
patterns, (3) a basis for necessary (mathematical) reasoning, (4) a
representation suitable for analogies and metaphors, and (5) an
essential step in mappings to an open-ended variety of other
representations, including algebraic notations, images of any kind,
and the ordinary languages that people speak and write.

Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.

I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.

John
 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[John F. Sowa]

Gary R, List,

I have a high regard for ADT's expertise about
Peirce's entire body of
work and his understanding of the
interconnections and developments
over the years.  But ADT is not a
mathematician or logician, and
Peirce was.

GR:  But this
is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it
merely
expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your
many,
many years concerning yourself with diagrams:  EGs and the CGs
based
on them, etc.

That is just your opinion.  Peirce repeatedly
emphasized the role of
mathematics, logic, and diagrammatic reasoning
throughout his career.
And he repeatedly derided
"metaphysicians" who did not base their
reasoning on logic,
mathematics and diagrams.  Please check CP for the
358 occurrences
the word 'diagram' (with various endings).

For more about
diagrammatic reasoning, with quotations from other
mathematicians
from Euclid and Archimedes to the present, please see
the first ten
slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf

See below for my
recommended change to ADT's slide 25.  In making that
revision, I am
not challenging ADT's knowledge of Peirce's writings in
general, but
I am claiming that he did not understand the math.

John



The original slide 25 by
ADT:

• Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal
necessities, we
cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out
what goes on in
experience.

• Yet we cannot ignore the
natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
figure out the
all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
want to sort
out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises
and
disguises.

• As a point of method, however, given that
mathematics is the “first”
stage of research in the heuristic schema,
how do we transition out of
it into a concern no longer detached from
but attached to the
conditions sustaining the cosmos, the world,
nature,



A revised
version of slide 25 suggested by JFS:

• Given mathematics'
unbounded search for formal necessities, the
phenomenologist must map
any mathematical interpretation to a diagram
that can help us figure
out what goes on in experience.

• Yet we cannot ignore the
natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
figure out the
all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
want to sort
out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises
and
disguises.

• After a diagram is derived by mathematical
methods, the methods of
normative science would address the
conditions that relate it to the
cosmos, the world, nature.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 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] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Gary Richmond]

Gary F, John, List,

JFS wrote:

Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.

I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but
it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.

But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it merely
expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your many, many
years concerning yourself with diagrams: EGs and the CGs based on them,
etc.

'Diagram' has connotations and meaning applications which extend far beyond
"qualitative possibility" so that the term is, in my opinion, at very least
confusing *in this context* because of that. Despite Peirce's broad
definition of 'diagram' I see no reason why it should be considered "the
best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in
other slides as well." As I see it this is just more of your valorizing
mathematics and glossing over and trivializing phenomenology, neither one
being well-served in the present context nor expressing Peirce's view of
the matter.

 "Qualitative possibility" is Peirce's expression with specific application
to phaneroscopy/phenomenology and, indeed, your thread "possibility" has
little to nothing to do with phaneroscopy, so it's quite appropriate (and
telling) that you changed the Subject line.

Meanwhile, if there are any scholars who have made a serious study of
Peirce's phenomenology they certainly include Andre De Tienne whose
dissertation already took up the topic in some depth. And this is one of
the reasons that he was a major consultant in the development of Richard
Kenneth Atkins recent monograph, *Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology:
Analysis and Consciousness*.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

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








Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#m_-3604060114900088693_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:26 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Gary F, Helmut, Jerry, List,
>
> Thanks, Gary, for that quotation.  I often search CP and EP before
> commenting on Peirce's terms, and I admit that I should have done
> that.  I agree that in Peirce's quotation for "positive qualitative
> possibility", it is a useful term -- especially in the context of three
> modes of being.
>
> CSP:  They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the
> being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in
> the future.  (CP 1.23)
>
> But in the context of ATD's slide 25 (and later), the word 'diagram'
> is a kind of "positive qualitative possibility" that is (1) an icon,
> (2) a general way of representing mathematical structures and
> patterns, (3) a basis for necessary (mathematical) reasoning, (4) a
> representation suitable for analogies and metaphors, and (5) an
> essential step in mappings to an open-ended variety of other
> representations, including algebraic notations, images of any kind,
> and the ordinary languages that people speak and write.
>
> Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
> slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.
>
> I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but
> it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.
>
> John
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[gnox]

John, in the clear light of morning, it appears to me that your revision of
ADT's slide 25 is all about theoretical models. (I prefer "model" over
"diagram", generally speaking, because we tend to think of a "diagram" as
two-dimensional, while the dimensionality of a "model" is not thus limited.)
Instead of elucidating the practice of phaneroscopy, you have virtually
eliminated it from the scope of science. I say "virtually" because it's not
clear whether, by not mentioning it, you are denying it or simply taking it
for granted. Peirce refused to do either, and that is why he had to include
it in his classification as "the primal positive science."

The first step in your account is a "mathematical interpretation." You don't
say what it is an interpretation of. But every interpretant, mathematical or
otherwise, must be triadically related to a sign and its object. If we
regard cognition as semiosis, we are already making a theoretical model.
Peirce on the other hand says that cognition must begin with direct
experience <https://gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm#dirxp> . Sometimes he says it
begins with the percept, which is another way of saying the same thing. The
first step is attention to what appears, to the phenomenon, to what is
"before the mind in any way." Only after attending to it do we begin to sort
out the different "ways" of being "before the mind" (as an object, as a
sign, as an interpretant, as a specific kind of object or sign or
interpretant, etc. etc. ad infinitum.)

There are philosophers who deny that "direct experience of things in
themselves" is possible, but most take it for granted. Peirce, instead of
taking either of those options, made it into a science by analyzing it (i.e.
analyzing the phaneron) into its "indecomposable elements." As ADT explains
in the slides I'm about to post, he called this science "high philosophy,"
and then "phenomenology," and then "phaneroscopy," coining a term whose
reference couldn't be confused with anything else because nobody else was
using the term. But in order to define it, he had to use terms that
everybody uses, such as "mind" and "experience." It took me an entire
chapter of my book <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/xpt.htm>  to explain what
people mean by "experience", so I won't try to do that here; but it is a key
word in the current part of ADT's talk, so we can discuss it later if need
be.

Gary f.

 

From: John F. Sowa  
Sent: 22-Aug-21 00:26
To: s...@bestweb.net
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Helmut Raulien ;
g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

 

My only excuse is that it's after midnight.

Helmut, List,

JFS:  I agree with Gary that "there are no perfect choices when it
comes to naming such things" and we should "weed out the choices most
likely to cause confusion."

HR:  But if we weed out too many terms, we may not be able to talk
anymore!  Can we not instead "count on mathematicians" to tell us, how
we should define and use "possibility" and "relation"?

The objection to the word 'possibility' was that it suggests a kind of
Secondnesss, since it would involve a dyadic relation to something
else.

My proposed revision to ADT's slide is to bring back Peirce's word
'diagram', which is one of his favorite terms.  Since every diagram is
an icon, it belongs to the first member of (icon, index, symbol).

It's true that a diagram may also be considered as a possibility, but
by itself, it's a first.  The aspect of Secondness only occurs after
somebody deliberately chooses it as a description of something else.

Instead of the new terms that ADT proposed, I said that his slide 25
could be stated more clearly and simply by bringing back the word
'diagram'.  See below for ADT's original slide 25.  After that is my
revised version of slide 25.  And just now, I thought of an even
simpler version of ADT's last sentence.  See my new version at the
bottom.

John



The original slide 25 by ADT:

. Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we
cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in
experience.

. Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
want to sort out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises
and disguises.

. As a point of method, however, given that mathematics is the "first"
stage of research in the heuristic schema, how do we transition out of
it into a concern no longer detached from but attached to the
conditions sustaining the cosmos, the world, nature,



A revised version of slide 25 suggested by JFS in the previous note:

. Given mathematics' unbounded se

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[John F. Sowa]

> 
> 
> Helmut, List,
> 
>
JFS:  I agree with Gary that "there are no
> perfect choices
when it
> comes to naming such things" and we
>
should "weed out the choices most
> likely to cause
>
confusion."
> 
> HR:  But if we weed out too many
terms, we may
> not be able to talk
> anymore!  Can we not
instead "count on
> mathematicians" to tell us, how
> we should define and use
> "possibility" and
"relation"?
> 
> The objection
> to the
word 'possibility' was that it suggests a kind of
>
Secondnesss,
> since it would involve a dyadic relation to
something
> else.
> 
> My proposed revision to
ADT's slide is to bring back Peirce's word
> 'diagram', which is
one of his favorite terms.  Since every diagram
> is
> an
icon, it belongs to the first member of (icon, index,
>
symbol).
> 
> It's true that a diagram may also be
considered as a
> possibility, but
> by itself, it's a
first.  The aspect of Secondness
> only occurs after
>
somebody deliberately chooses it as a description
> of something
else.
> 
> Instead of the new terms that ADT proposed,
> I said that his slide 25
> could be stated more clearly and
simply by
> bringing back the word
> 'diagram'.  See below
for ADT's original slide
> 25.  After that is my
> revised
version of slide 25.  And just now, I
> thought of an even
> simpler version of ADT's last sentence.  See my
> new
version at the
> bottom.
> 
> John
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[John F. Sowa]

Gary F, List,

GF:  we agree that De Tienne’s reference to a
“transition out of
mathematics” in slide 25 can be confusing, and you
say that we can
avoid the confusion “by adopting the word 'diagram'
for ADT's slide
25.” ...  Do you mean substituting the word “diagram”
for some part of
slide 25?

Yes, but first I'll cite the
following quotation, which shows that
Peirce had a very broad idea of
what a diagram could be:

CSP:  an algebraist like Boole plainly
thought in algebraic symbols;
and so did I, until, at great pains, I
learned to think in diagrams,
which is a much superior method.  I am
convinced there is a far better
one, capable of wonders; but the
great cost of the apparatus forbids
my learning it.  It consists in
thinking in stereoscopic moving
pictures.  Of course one might
substitute the real objects moving in
solid space; and that might not
be so very unreasonably costly.
 (NEM 3:191, L231 1911)

This is the same MS in which he presented his 1911 EGs, and he is
already thinking of going beyond the two-dimensional versions to
stereoscopic moving images.  That would be an excellent
generalization
for phaneroscopy.  It would support a more complete
and more precise
mapping.  In the last sentence, he also talks about
"real objects
moving in solid space".

That would
support the full mapping from perception to 3D moving
diagrams to
action in and on the physical world.  In today's
terminology, Peirce
anticipated computational methods for virtual
reality.

If
we assume the option of generalizing EGs beyond two dimensions,
they
would be (a) mathematical, (b) visual, and (c) directly mappable
to
and from moving 3-D experiences and actions.  I presented a talk
along those lines at a Peirce session of an APA conference in April
2015.  In December 2015, I presented an updated version at a workshop
that Zalamea hosted in Bogota.  In 2018, the Journal of Applied
Logics
published an issue that contained papers based on those
talks.
Following are my slides from Bpgpta; slide 2 has the URL of
the
journal issue:  http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf

Following are the revisions I'd sugest for slide 25:

1. For
the first bullet item, replace the clause that begins with "we
cannot count..." with "the phenomenologist must map any
mathematical
interpretation to a diagram that can help us figure out
what goes on
in experience.


2. Bullet item #2 is OK
as is.

3. For the third, replace the clause that begins
"how do we..." with
"how do we relate the initial
diagram to diarams or other
representations of the conditions
sustaining the cosmos, the world,
nature."

For these
three points, I tried to leave as much of ADT's words as I
could
while keeping the word 'diagram' and any mathematical
interpretation
or reasoning that may require it..

John



ADT:  • Given mathematics'
unbounded search for formal necessities, we
cannot count on
mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in
experience.

• Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us
to
figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its
bondage.  We
want to sort out its laws, its structures, its
composition, its guises
and disguises.

• As a point of
method, however, given that mathematics is the “first”
stage of
research in the heuristic schema, how do we transition out of
it into
a concern no longer detached from but attached to the
condiions
sustaining the cosmos, the world, nature,  
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 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.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[gnox]

John, we agree that De Tienne’s reference to a “transition out of mathematics” 
in slide 25 can be confusing, and you say that we can avoid the confusion “by 
adopting the word 'diagram' for ADT's slide 25.” It’s not clear to me how this 
“adopting” would work. Do you mean substituting the word “diagram” for some 
part of slide 25? Here’s the original text of it:

 

ADT: • Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we cannot 
count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in experience.

• Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to figure 
out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage. We want to sort out 
its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises and disguises.

• As a point of method, however, given that mathematics is the “first” stage of 
research in the heuristic schema, how do we transition out of it into a concern 
no longer detached from but attached to the conditions sustaining the cosmos, 
the world, nature, life in general, our life?

 

Can you demonstrate how you would “adopt the word 'diagram'” for that slide?

 

JFS: The word 'diagram' is an English word whose common meaning includes 
Peirce's mathematical sense.  Since Peirce defined a diagram as a kind of icon, 
it is the first in the trichotomy of icon, index, symbol.

 

GF: I see much potential for confusion here. In the first place, “diagram” is 
clearly not a synonym for “icon.” An existential graph, for instance, is more 
iconic than its equivalent in algebraic notation or in a verbal sentence, but 
it certainly isn’t a “pure” icon, as its symbolic aspects have to be taken into 
account in the interpretation of it. Nobody can read an existential graph 
without first learning the conventions of the system. Besides, these graphs 
usually include words as names of the “spots,” and visual “icons” used as 
substitutes for those names are no less symbolic. The “icons” we use in 
everyday life, such as those on men’s and women’s washrooms, are also 
conventional despite their independence of any particular verbal language. The 
fact that a diagram is a kind of icon does not imply that the words “icon” and 
“diagram” are interchangeable.

 

In short, I don’t see how your use of the term “diagram” clarifies the practice 
of phaneroscopy. Maybe you can explain by drawing me a diagram.  (insert smile 
icon here.)

 

Gary f.

 

 

}  {

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: 20-Aug-21 23:30
To: Helmut Raulien 
Cc: g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

 

Gary F, Helmut, List,

I agree with Gary that "there are no perfect choices when it comes to
naming such things" and we should "weed out the choices most likely to
cause confusion."

HR:  In mathematical language, the sentence "possibility implies a
relation to what exists" is false.  Maybe in ordinary English usage it
is true, I dont know

That uncertainty is a good reason for not adopting it as a technical
term, except in the context of modal logic.

GF:  In this context, Peirce acknowledges that in ordinary English
usage, “possibility implies a relation to what exists.” Since
existence involves Secondness, that renders tthe word “possibility”
unfit for rendering the concept named “Firstness.” In order to
consistently use “qualitative possibility” in reference to Firstness,
it is necessary to explicitly set aside the ordinary implication which
connects the word to Secondness.  This is what Peirce does in the
bolded words quoted from EP2:479:

More reason for avoiding it, except in the context of modal logic.

This discussion started with slide 25, in which ADT wanted a
"transition" out of mathematics to something that "the rest of us" can
understand.  The word 'diagram' is an English word whose common
meaning includes Peirce's mathematical sense.  Since Peirce defined a
diagram as a kind of icon, it is the first in the trichotomy of icon,
index, symbol.

By adopting the word 'diagram' for ADT's slide 25, we resolve the
issues without introducing new jargon.

John

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 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.