[PEIRCE-L] Re: Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

2017-05-29 Thread Jon Awbrey 

Peircers,

In our “Inquiry as Action : Risk of Inquiry” paper, originally
presented at a conference whose theme was “Hermeneutics and the
Human Sciences”, Susan and I sought to trace the interminglings
of signs and inquiry and the theories thereof.  We pursued their
trajectory through three points of reference, Aristotle, Peirce,
and Dewey.  We noted both convergences and divergences, and the
the course of true signs never did run smooth, as everyone knows.

We characterized Aristotle's treatment “On Interpretation”, where the
implied relationship between a sign and its object is a 2-step linkage
that pivots on what Peirce would call an interpretant sign, as “in part
a reasonable approximation and in part a suggestive metaphor, suitable
as a first approach to a complex subject”.  It makes for a good start,
but ultimately falls short of grasping the triadicity of sign relations.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 5:52 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Peircers,

Just to get the ball rolling, or ping-pong-ing as the case may be,
let me refer to a couple of points from Sue's and my Inquiry paper
that came first to mind as I skimmed the Rhematics page -- I had
some trouble telling who was saying what at times so I will give
it another go later on.

I see there remains a persistent desire to parse symbols into
simpler signs like icons and indices, or to say that genuine
triadicity has its genesis in some kind of coitus between
degenerate species.  I suppose bi-o-logical metaphors are
just bound to lead folks down that path, and I guess we
all fall into the sinns of simile from time to time,
but due care of our semiotic souls should keep us
from turning that error into doctrine, if we wit
what's good for us.

To be continued ...
very scattered time
and mind today ...

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 5:00 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Gary, List ...

Re: http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/

I hope to comment more fully, eventually, but the uses
to which Susan Awbrey and I turned Aristotle's passage
from De Interp can be found in our paper from 1992/1995:

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines''
15(1), pp. 40–52.

Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/19970626071826/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html

Journal
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052

Online
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (June 1992),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''The Eleventh International Human Science Research
Conference'', Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 4:38 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:

John and list,

Peirce’s “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” (CP 4.573-84) in indeed a 
fascinating read; Frederik Stjernfelt comments on
it extensively in Chapter 8 of Natural Propositions. But according to Don 
Roberts (1973, p.89), it’s from the spring
of 1906, and preceded the drafts of the “Prolegomena”, which was published 
later in that year. You seem to be
reversing that chronology by including it with “further developments” in the 
EGs after the Prolegomena. Anyway, what
happened to EGs after 1906 is not at all clear to me, although I’ve worked my 
way through the relevant papers on your
site. Given the central role Peirce wanted them to play in his “apology for 
pragmaticism,” I’m still trying to
understand this, and your list doesn’t give me many clues.

Roberts (p.92) describes the “Prolegomena” as “Peirce’s last full scale 
revision of EG,” and notes that the
“tinctures” did not really solve the problems with representing modal logic 
that Peirce thought he had solved in the
spring of 1906. Some of his later comments on the “Prolegomena” (included in
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm) are quite critical of it — one even 
refers to the “tinctures” and
“heraldry” as “nonsensical” — but they don’t really say how these problems can 
be solved diagrammatically. Are you
saying that his later manuscripts did solve these problems, or that Peirce 
“simplified” his system of EGs by
abandoning further development of the Gamma graphs and reverting to a version 
of the Beta?

For me, these questions have large implications for Peirce’s late semiotics, 
phaneroscopy, Synechism, pragmaticism and
metaphysics (as he suggested at the end of his “Improvement on the Gamma 
Graphs” talk (CP 4.584). I have to confess
that for me, the mapping back and forth between EGs and other diagrammatic or 
algebraic systems doesn’t throw any
light on those implications. I’d appreciate any help you (or anyone) can give 
toward clarifying them.

I’m also curious as to what people think of my “Rhematics” post 
(http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/) and Gary
Richmond’s comment on it, as I have a follow-up in mind …

Gary f.



--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

2017-05-29 Thread Jon Awbrey 

Peircers,

Just to get the ball rolling, or ping-pong-ing as the case may be,
let me refer to a couple of points from Sue's and my Inquiry paper
that came first to mind as I skimmed the Rhematics page -- I had
some trouble telling who was saying what at times so I will give
it another go later on.

I see there remains a persistent desire to parse symbols into
simpler signs like icons and indices, or to say that genuine
triadicity has its genesis in some kind of coitus between
degenerate species.  I suppose bi-o-logical metaphors are
just bound to lead folks down that path, and I guess we
all fall into the sinns of simile from time to time,
but due care of our semiotic souls should keep us
from turning that error into doctrine, if we wit
what's good for us.

To be continued ...
very scattered time
and mind today ...

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 5:00 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Gary, List ...

Re: http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/

I hope to comment more fully, eventually, but the uses
to which Susan Awbrey and I turned Aristotle's passage
from De Interp can be found in our paper from 1992/1995:

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines''
15(1), pp. 40–52.

Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/19970626071826/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html

Journal
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052

Online
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (June 1992),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''The Eleventh International Human Science Research
Conference'', Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 4:38 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:

John and list,



Peirce’s “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” (CP 4.573-84) in indeed a 
fascinating read; Frederik Stjernfelt comments on
it extensively in Chapter 8 of Natural Propositions. But according to Don 
Roberts (1973, p.89), it’s from the spring
of 1906, and preceded the drafts of the “Prolegomena”, which was published 
later in that year. You seem to be
reversing that chronology by including it with “further developments” in the 
EGs after the Prolegomena. Anyway, what
happened to EGs after 1906 is not at all clear to me, although I’ve worked my 
way through the relevant papers on your
site. Given the central role Peirce wanted them to play in his “apology for 
pragmaticism,” I’m still trying to
understand this, and your list doesn’t give me many clues.



Roberts (p.92) describes the “Prolegomena” as “Peirce’s last full scale 
revision of EG,” and notes that the
“tinctures” did not really solve the problems with representing modal logic 
that Peirce thought he had solved in the
spring of 1906. Some of his later comments on the “Prolegomena” (included in
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm) are quite critical of it — one even 
refers to the “tinctures” and
“heraldry” as “nonsensical” — but they don’t really say how these problems can 
be solved diagrammatically. Are you
saying that his later manuscripts did solve these problems, or that Peirce 
“simplified” his system of EGs by
abandoning further development of the Gamma graphs and reverting to a version 
of the Beta?



For me, these questions have large implications for Peirce’s late semiotics, 
phaneroscopy, Synechism, pragmaticism and
metaphysics (as he suggested at the end of his “Improvement on the Gamma 
Graphs” talk (CP 4.584). I have to confess
that for me, the mapping back and forth between EGs and other diagrammatic or 
algebraic systems doesn’t throw any
light on those implications. I’d appreciate any help you (or anyone) can give 
toward clarifying them.



I’m also curious as to what people think of my “Rhematics” post 
(http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/) and Gary
Richmond’s comment on it, as I have a follow-up in mind …



Gary f.



-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 27-May-17 22:00
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com



On 5/26/2017 8:49 AM,   g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:


my own site,   
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm, which I think



improves on Zeman’s version in some respects, even correcting a few



errors.




Yes, that looks good.




your contribution to the “Five Questions” collection,



  
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/5qsigns.htm — which i highly recommend




Thanks.



For the further development of EGs, I recommend Peirce's later MSS and his 
"Improvement on the Gamma Graphs", which
Jay posted on his site.  (See below for an excerpt.)



The later MSS (around 1909) simplified the foundation of EGs, the rules of 
inference, and the mapping to and from
algebraic notations and natural languages.  Ba

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

2017-05-29 Thread Jon Awbrey 

Gary, List ...

Re: http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/

I hope to comment more fully, eventually, but the uses
to which Susan Awbrey and I turned Aristotle's passage
from De Interp can be found in our paper from 1992/1995:

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines''
15(1), pp. 40–52.

Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/19970626071826/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html

Journal
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052

Online
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (June 1992),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''The Eleventh International Human Science Research
Conference'', Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 4:38 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:

John and list,



Peirce’s “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” (CP 4.573-84) in indeed a 
fascinating read; Frederik Stjernfelt comments on it extensively in Chapter 8 
of Natural Propositions. But according to Don Roberts (1973, p.89), it’s from 
the spring of 1906, and preceded the drafts of the “Prolegomena”, which was 
published later in that year. You seem to be reversing that chronology by 
including it with “further developments” in the EGs after the Prolegomena. 
Anyway, what happened to EGs after 1906 is not at all clear to me, although 
I’ve worked my way through the relevant papers on your site. Given the central 
role Peirce wanted them to play in his “apology for pragmaticism,” I’m still 
trying to understand this, and your list doesn’t give me many clues.



Roberts (p.92) describes the “Prolegomena” as “Peirce’s last full scale 
revision of EG,” and notes that the “tinctures” did not really solve the 
problems with representing modal logic that Peirce thought he had solved in the 
spring of 1906. Some of his later comments on the “Prolegomena” (included in 
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm) are quite critical of it — one even 
refers to the “tinctures” and “heraldry” as “nonsensical” — but they don’t 
really say how these problems can be solved diagrammatically. Are you saying 
that his later manuscripts did solve these problems, or that Peirce 
“simplified” his system of EGs by abandoning further development of the Gamma 
graphs and reverting to a version of the Beta?



For me, these questions have large implications for Peirce’s late semiotics, 
phaneroscopy, Synechism, pragmaticism and metaphysics (as he suggested at the 
end of his “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” talk (CP 4.584). I have to confess 
that for me, the mapping back and forth between EGs and other diagrammatic or 
algebraic systems doesn’t throw any light on those implications. I’d appreciate 
any help you (or anyone) can give toward clarifying them.



I’m also curious as to what people think of my “Rhematics” post 
(http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/) and Gary Richmond’s comment on it, 
as I have a follow-up in mind …



Gary f.



-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 27-May-17 22:00
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com



On 5/26/2017 8:49 AM,   g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:


my own site,   
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm, which I think



improves on Zeman’s version in some respects, even correcting a few



errors.




Yes, that looks good.




your contribution to the “Five Questions” collection,



  
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/5qsigns.htm — which i highly recommend




Thanks.



For the further development of EGs, I recommend Peirce's later MSS and his 
"Improvement on the Gamma Graphs", which Jay posted on his site.  (See below 
for an excerpt.)



The later MSS (around 1909) simplified the foundation of EGs, the rules of 
inference, and the mapping to and from algebraic notations and natural 
languages.  Basic innovations:



  1. Major simplification in the treatment of lines of identity,

 ligatures, and teridentity.  (See the excerpt below.)



  2. Elimination of talk about cuts, recto, and verso.  Instead, he

 introduced shaded (negative) and unshaded (positive) areas.



  3. Simplification and generalization of the rules of inference to

 three pairs of rules:  each pair has an insertion rule and an

 erasure rule, each of which is an exact inverse of the other.



  4. The same rules apply to both Alpha and Beta: therefore, there

 is no need to distinguish Alpha and Beta.  Any proposition in

 Alpha may be treated as a medad (0-adic relation) in  Beta.



  5. The above innovations make Peirce's proof procedure an extension

 and generalization of *both* Gentzen's natural deduction *and*

 Alan Robinson's widely used metho

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

2017-05-22 Thread Jon Awbrey 

Also, the last WayBak link for http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/

http://web.archive.org/web/20161014202000/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/

Jon

--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .