[peirce-l] Re: What's going on here?
Frances to Thomas and listers... There may for many persons be some things that are outside the scope and venue of objective semiotics or logic and not be prone as objects of study to the laws of scientific belief, such as articles of religious faith for example, but not for Peirce and his brand of idealist and realist pragmatism. Within a Peircean framework, let us ask whether the inner subjective phobias and pains of individual persons are absolute states that are never confused as being anything else, or are they referent signs that stand objectively for something else? Since according to Peirce all phenomenal things that are sensed are representamens and existent objects, then they must necessarily be signs, and signs that refer to other objects. Now, if a person is unconscious or conscious of their own inner state, such as pain for example, which they do not confuse as being anything other than pain and only the pain of their own self and not the pain of another person, the only way that subjective state can be a sign is if it were falsifiable and fallible in some way. In other words, if the pain of the self as sensed was actually mistaken in that it was a referred phantom pain, of say an amputated limb, then that state is not absolute, and in fact is a sign. To the extent therefore that some consciousness is interpretable and translatable, then it is all conceivably and probably an objective logical construct. Indeed, all of subjectivity would then fall under this phenomenal umbrella, which is existential and experiential. Thomas writes... Frances partly wrote: It would seem that objective logic must hence allow and admit some degree of psychologistic subjectivism after all. Frances also partly wrote: Human logic according to Peirce is thus seemingly an obstinate and degenerate form of pure logic that thinkers discover. What is likely found however is not a rigid mechanical world predetermined to exist by some agent of design, but rather is a dispositional tendency for the natural world to simply evolve logically. The human aquisition and utilization of pure logic is perhaps one of intermediate phenomena, acting as a bridge laying related between say immediate nomena and mediate epiphenomena, if it can be put in those terms within a Peircean framework. In CP 4.80 Peirce writes: Second intentional, or, as I also call it, Objective Logic [...] I do not have much use for the distinction between subjective and objective in your sense, though I do seem to understand very well what you mean, Frances. The problem is: the more subjective people are in one sense, the more objective they are in another sense. Take phobias. Very subjective thing. Usually I couldn't produce such effects personally with me. But being afflicted with it there is a button and each time it is pushed: whooom. It happens. Very mechanistically. Each time the very same thing. On and on. Many years ago I learned to do psychotherapy. What clients try to do is change habits. That's learning, often very serious learning, and that interested me. In the Freudian schools you learn beforehand what's good and what's bad. Projection is bad: You see your husband and then you see your stepfather in him and then you are in trouble etc. So far so bad. But then, perhaps we can put the very same effect to a good use. There is something interesting and maybe I got that from Fritz Pearls or Virgina Satir. I don't remember. It's this: Client tells you his or her problem. You don't understand what's going on. Neither does your client. And you'd better know that you don't know what's going on. For if you really know what's going on, you have the same problem as your client. Then you are usually not so particularly qualified to help, since you haven't been able to solve your own problem. If, on the other hand, you hear what is said and then say: Ah, that's easy, you don't have to have that problem, since I do not have it. Here is my good advice. I'll tell you... Well, then your client will go away. And for very good reasons. If your client stays for some reason, the best you could do, is teach him a new language, with words like suppression, resistance, Ego, Superego, Gestalt etc etc in it. The client then has her problem, as before, and a new foreign language to talk about it. More problems, not less. And when you have even a Latin name for your problem and it's a scientific thing, you can't simply forget, in a natural way, to have your problem. It will never leave you. It's Latin, you know. That's more confusion and not less and not at all what the patient came for. So I hear what the description of the problem is and let's say it's about grandma, father and poor me and so on. Then I'd say: OK, let's see what you have in your pockets. And there is a knife, a handkerchief, a coin, etc. And we put things on the table here and there and there and the handkerchief is poor me, the coin is grandma and so on. I don't understand what that means but so be
[peirce-l] Peirce Epicurean texts
Hello. This is my first post to this listserv. It was suggested to me by my professor that people on this list might have some input regarding a question I am starting to pursue, and that I might consider sending out a message. So I am doing so. I am examining Peirce's various statements and discussions of Epicureanism (e.g. in The Doctrine of Necessity Examined, The Logic of Continuity, and other places, such as the unpublished manuscripts - which I shall be looking at soon on microfilm). In short, I am interested in the question of the significance of Epicureanism for Peirce, and, as part of this, whether or not he is correct to ultimately dismiss the Epicurean position as he does. Now, the question I have for this forum is: what Epicurean texts was Peirce reading and working from? The obvious choices are writings like Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus and Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, texts with which I am familiar. However, I don't know. Does anyone here? Thanks. Charlie Hobbs Doctoral Student Department of Philosophy Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Peirce invented the electric switching computer?
Dear List, There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I have copied into Panopedia for reference here: http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_Science The article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce was: " ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric switching computer" Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with references? Better still, can anyone identify the author? With respect, Steven --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Peirce invented the electric switching computer?
Letter Peirce to Marquand, L 269, 30 December 1886 in W5, p.422,423 Thomas. On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:30:30 +0100, Steven Ericsson Zenith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear List, There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I have copied into Panopedia for reference here: http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_Science The article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce was: ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric switching computer Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with references? Better still, can anyone identify the author? With respect, Steven / / --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: What's going on here?
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:14:53 +0100, Frances Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To the extent therefore that some consciousness is interpretable and translatable, then it is all conceivably and probably an objective logical construct. Indeed, all of subjectivity would then fall under this phenomenal umbrella, which is existential and experiential. You confuse me, Frances. Going from some to all here seems to be an inductive step. And the conclusion seems to me doubtful, since consciousness seems to be a continuous process. Though you can determine it, perhaps to any extent you please, that does not mean that it necessarily consists of these determinations. It is embodied in these and those objects, but it does not consist of these objects though it has to be embodied in _some_ objects. Or do I misunderstand what you mean by phenomenal umbrella? Maybe it's only a matter of language. Thomas. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Peirce invented the electric switching computer?
Dear Steven, In Ken Ketner's book "His Glassy Essence" it is mentioned on page 196 that Peirce's brother, Ben "met Charles Babbage to discuss mechanized computing"... For whatever that's worth. I believe Ken Ketner is an electrical engineer as well as philosopher, biographer, etc and may have spoken elsewhere aboutPeirce andelectric switching computers. Jim Piat - Original Message - From: Steven Ericsson Zenith To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Peirce invented the "electric switching computer?" Dear List,There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I have copied into Panopedia for reference here: http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_ScienceThe article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce was: " ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric switching computer"Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with references? Better still, can anyone identify the author?With respect,Steven---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] RE: Are there authorities on authority?
Larry Sanger wrote: This question--who authorizes the authorities--really lies at the heart of social epistemology, and reminds me of an essay I read in grad school, Egoism in Epistemology by Richard Foley (in *Socializing Epistemology*--I just pulled the book off the shelf). Among other things Foley distinguishes derivative and fundamental authority, which is roughly the difference between authority for which I have reasons to believe a person is a reliable source of knowledge, and authority for which I have no such reasons. A central issue in social epistemology is whether--at some point--we must simply take what others say on trust, or whether it is always possible in some deep way ultimately to justify our reliance on testimony. Epistemic egoists (Foley's term) say it is possible. Dear Folks- Peirce speaks of reliance upon authority as one way of fixing belief . But I believe he recommends the method of science as perhaps the better way to settle questions of fact if one's goal is primarily to learn the truth of the matter. Unfortunately we are not always in a position to conduct scientific investigations and must rely on less direct ways of acquiring the sort of information science can provide. In such case it would be nice to have access to some representative sample of scientific results succinctly summarized in a way we could understand them without ourselves having the scientific background and resources necessary to do the research ourselves. Similarly it would be nice to have access to information about all sort of topics categorized and summarized in a felicitious and transparent way -- by which I mean accessible, comprehendable and traceable to its source so that we could make a judgment as to its bias (deliberate or otherwise). I say bias because this what we seem to fear --- that the information will be distorted or falsified because of some prejudice or ulterior motive of those who have provided it. But what I really want to say is merely POV. The usefulness, comprehensiveness and ultimately truth of all information is limited by the fact that it represents from a particular point of view. What we seek (and what the scientific method is expresessly set up to provide) is a representative sampling of all possible points of view. There are no priviledged points of view. Truth is that which is common to all points of view. What we seek from so called experts is their access to this common knowledge or POV. What makes one an expert is not that they know something unique to a special POV but that they know what is common to all points of view of a particular topic. This, it seems to me, is the uncommon common sense we speak of as being the domain of wisdom. An expert knows a lot about a particular topic. What's rare about an expert's knowledge is its scope. The expert distills the conceptual essence of a subject matter from many points of views. Expertise is a reliable access to truth, not because it is based upon a unique or rare POV, but precisely because it is not dependent upon or limited to a particular point of view. And the measure of what is not dependent upon a particular POV (or of POV in general) is that which is common to all points of view. What all POVs have in common is the truth. What is unique to every POV is error. What is unique to the truth is that it is what is common to all POVs. What is common to all error is that it uniquely expressed in every POV. Truth and error are common and unique in exactly opposite ways. And how do we collect and provide access to the sort of expertise we seek? I'm not sure but I would look to the scientific investigation of the question as the best way to provide answers. What is the most reliable way to collate scientific information, or expert summation of scientific information, in a easily accessable fashion is itself a scientific question. Does some sort of citation count procedure (such as google etc) provide the most representative sampling of the information domain? And what sort of expert information domain do we want to sample -- maybe some way of providing more transparancy about the domain sampled coupled with broad and representative sampling is the best way to categoriize and make accessible what folks are seeking. Somehow though, I doubt that committees selected on the basis of academic standing (judged by some committee of academics) is going to provide the sort of broad and comprehensive expertise we deseve and are capable of providing with the tools of the internet. Seems to me we need to come up with some less value laden selection criteria. Something more tied to the mere quantitative dimensions of the information domain being sampled -- as opposed to being tied to the particular values of those designing the information system. Ha -- I suppose my values rather than the values of those doing the work! In any case I agree that
[peirce-l] Re: Peirce invented the electric switching computer?
My thanks Thomas, can you please clarify to which document "W5" refers. Thanks, Steven Thomas Riese wrote: Letter Peirce to Marquand, L 269, 30 December 1886 in W5, p.422,423 Thomas. On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:30:30 +0100, Steven Ericsson Zenith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear List, There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I have copied into Panopedia for reference here: http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_Science The article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce was: " ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric switching computer" Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with references? Better still, can anyone identify the author? With respect, Steven / / --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Peirce invented the electric switching computer?
Steven: Thomas is referring to Writings of CSP, vol. 5. It contains a copy of a letter of Dec 30, 1886, of which there is a copy (with an image of a page from it), to Allan Marquand in which Peirce explains to Marquand how the electronic switch (the logic gate) would work, with a simple diagram. Kenneth Ketner wrote a paper on a logic machine which Marquand built with an account of Peirce's role in that, but I seem to have mislaid my copy of it. Ken is temporarily off of the list, pursuing the possibility of getting the Peirce-inspired quantum computer actualized, but he probably still has an offprint he can send you or a photocopy of it. But apart from that you can check the reference to the Writings volume. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Steven Ericsson Zenith To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 2:30 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Peirce invented the "electric switching computer?" Dear List,There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I have copied into Panopedia for reference here: http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_ScienceThe article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce was: " ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric switching computer"Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with references? Better still, can anyone identify the author?With respect,Steven---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 2/28/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 2/28/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Peirce invented the electric switching computer?
Sorry Steven, it's the Writings of Charles S. Peirce, A Chronological Edition. on page 422 Peirce gives a description and two drawings (for an AND and an OR gate) together with the electrical batteries and all. On page 423 there is a reproduction of the original manuscript page. The letter is worth reading. Really makes one very sad. See further: http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/writings/v5/vol5.htm Thomas. On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:00:07 +0100, Steven Ericsson Zenith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My thanks Thomas, can you please clarify to which document W5 refers. Thanks, Steven Thomas Riese wrote: Letter Peirce to Marquand, L 269, 30 December 1886 in W5, p.422,423 Thomas. On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:30:30 +0100, Steven Ericsson Zenith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear List, There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I have copied into Panopedia for reference here: http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_Science The article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce was: ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric switching computer Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with references? Better still, can anyone identify the author? With respect, Steven / / --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?
Dear Ben, thanks for your reply, I'll respond as soon as possible in detail. The transitivity is not so much of an issue. I can explain that. Asymmetry then isn't a problem either. The difficulty was, to find out what the true (logical) nature of quasi-periodicity is. I can show that Peirce's notion of probability, contrary to what Hilary Putnam surmised, is exceedingly advanced. The curious thing is, that what I found at the same time elucidates the hitherto so strange seeming structure of the Peirce Continuum (true continuity). I can show what it is in mathematical terms now. I can show what the Bernoulli numbers and probability have to do with it, too. And I now have a really thorough understanding of the structure embodied in the New List of 1867 with surprising connections. Seems perhaps I really have made a curious discovery. Nevertheless I am quite distressed. These things are, in terms of mathematical analysis, a true nightmare as you know, except you find the right point of view. It's very difficult to find the right mathematical context to put it in. Somehow this thing is too big. If you don't find a suitable context, you are utterly lost. Nobody will ever understand what you mean and there will be nothing but a big mess. Fog and confusion. I feel I have to talk with someone. Maybe Helmut Pape in Bamberg. Email discussion is such a difficult ballgame. Please be patient with me, Ben. I must say, whatever your damned fourth category is, what you write is exceedingly inspiring for me! I don't know why;-) I think I had better sleep over this, but it seems to me that this won't go away anymore. Eadem mutata resurgo Your Thomas. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
