[peirce-l] Re: Pragmatic inquiry == "the love of learning"
Gary, You wrote: [GR] my word, man, what will it be next? quantum mechanics?!! She is, as I said, wonderfully unremarkable (healthy, slave to her emotions, spur of the moment, honest without tact, impatient, etc...). She benefits from what I believe most of us take for granted; children are inherently curious and intelligent, and given the "food of life" shelter, security and love, they thrive & learn naturally. I worry that our society seems to forget that not all children have these luxuries... that we do not do enough to ensure that all youth are "wonderfully unremarkable"... that said, plans for the "Probability Drive" should be forthcoming ;-) Darrel Summers From: Gary Richmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:27 PMTo: Peirce Discussion ForumSubject: [peirce-l] Re: Pragmatic inquiry == "the love of learning" Darrel, list,You wrote: DS: It would seem my teaching of letters and words may not have had learning in my mind, hence; I am not a teacher.It seems to me that a parent entering into this kind of dialogue with his child certainly has learning "in his mind" at that moment (even if perhaps not exactly at the earlier moment of his teaching letters and words), that entering into this kind of dialogue you are having with Grace (first about 'nothingness' and now about the structure/content of words--my word, man, what will it be next? quantum mechanics?!!!), this kind of questioning approach seems likely to help Grace begin to form habits which could lead her to valuing and using Socratic method (and other dialectical techniques) in her own learning. Here's a neat definition I recently came upon of "Socratic method" which links well to the subject of this thread and your post. Socratic method n. A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge. (American Heritage eDictionary)Of course a child needs to be taught a few facts and exposed to a lot of collateral experience or there won't be much subject matter for discussion (to say the least). But, it seems to me that your engaging in such dialogue with Grace is establishing fertile ground in which learning in the Peircean sense is most likely to occur. You wrote that your response to Grace's telling you that she learned in school that words are "made of letters" was: DS: "Grace, you have been reading for some time now, and you have known the alphabet for three years, you knew that letters were in words". She replies "But, I didn't know that words were made (I am unsure how she perceives "made") of letters". Knowing that words have letters does not, in the eyes of a six year old, necessarily mean that words are made of lettersThis question you have as to "how she perceives 'made' " might be worth pursuing further with her. I had a thought that one way you might take it up would be in considering with her homonyms suitable to her 6 year old reading level, perhaps "to, too, two, 2" to explore just what "made of" might mean here. This could as well lead to an inquiry--again suitable for a six year old--into the differences between written and spoken language. Down the road one might even want to consider the difference between words, like 'two', and equivalent symbols, like '2', /, /, etc. But I'd advise your not taking it much further than that or you might end up producing the world's youngest semiotician!You began your post by writing: DS: This post probably will not advance the subjectWell, I can't agree as it certainly has advanced the subject for me (while I am always eager to hear what you and Grace have been intellectually 'up to' :-)Best,GaryDarrel Summers wrote: All, This post probably will not advance the subject, but I thought I would share an insight it has brought to me. My six year old daughter (who posed a question about "nothing" some time ago) has been reading at a six year olds level for about a year now (thankfully unremarkable). She came to me recently and said "I learned that words are made of letters at school today". I said "Grace, you have been reading for some time now, and you have known the alphabet for three years, you knew that letters were in words". She replies "But, I didn't know that words were made (I am unsure how she perceives "made") of letters". Knowing that words have letters does not, in the eyes of a six year old, necessarily mean that words ar
[peirce-l] Re: Pragmatic inquiry == "the love of learning"
All, This post probably will not advance the subject, but I thought I would share an insight it has brought to me. My six year old daughter (who posed a question about "nothing" some time ago) has been reading at a six year olds level for about a year now (thankfully unremarkable). She came to me recently and said "I learned that words are made of letters at school today". I said "Grace, you have been reading for some time now, and you have known the alphabet for three years, you knew that letters were in words". She replies "But, I didn't know that words were made (I am unsure how she perceives "made") of letters". Knowing that words have letters does not, in the eyes of a six year old, necessarily mean that words are made of letters. My assumption that she would have known otherwise seems in line with: But, of course! Further reflection on the graphic image (teaching reflecting learning) as symbol of the thread's theme got me thinking that it is not just any teaching which will be reflected as learning, but a certain kind of teaching, a structuring and shaping of teaching with learning in mind from the get go in order that it might reflect learning (certainly a different shaping of "teaching" in the graphic might not have reflected "learning" at all). It would seem my teaching of letters and words may not have had learning in my mind, hence; I am not a teacher. Best Darrel Summers From: Gary Richmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:06 PMTo: Peirce Discussion ForumSubject: [peirce-l] Re: Pragmatic inquiry == "the love of learning" I forgot to include the graphic. Here it is.Gary Richmond wrote: Arnold, Jim, list,I hope you won't mind my posting my response to your personal email, Arnold, as your comments seem most pertinent to the subject of the thread. [Note: off-list I sent Arnold a graphic image: the reflection of teaching as learning which is attached here and should appear at the bottom of this post. All the quoted material is from Arnold's email.]Hi Arnold,As I'm caught up in the beginning of the new college term so just a few inter - linear/ -paragraphical comments.Arnold Shepperson wrote: Oh yes. But it still leaves one wondering about the WHAT that's being taught, and equally about the WHAT that's being learned!! But, of course! Further reflection on the graphic image (teaching reflecting learning) as symbol of the thread's theme got me thinking that it is not just any teaching which will be reflected as learning, but a certain kind of teaching, a structuring and shaping of teaching with learning in mind from the get go in order that it might reflect learning (certainly a different shaping of "teaching" in the graphic might not have reflected "learning" at all). Perhaps we should think of working this into Peirce's way of expressing the categories in NLC: WHAT -- IS -- IT? One gets the impression that when Peirce defined "university" in the Century Dictionary as an `Association of men (ahem) for the purpose of learning and research', he was as much concerned with this WHAT as he was with the IS and the IT. Yes, and the WHAT may perhaps be seen to center around logic for Peirce, ultimately in its methodeutical branch around sound inquiry itself, how one goes about researching, whatever the subject matter (hypothesis formation regulated only by the pragmatic maxim and a certain 'economy of research'). Personally, I can't see that one can have a peircean version of the University without SOME modicum of `teaching';This is pretty much the theme of the faculty development seminar I'm developing/co-leading at my college this year. College instructors need to learn to teach students how to go about efficiently accessing the best information for their purposes (e.g., they tend to use the free web & Google almost exclusively, not tapping into the great data bases the university subscribes to, etc.), critically evaluating the material they find (there's a lot of garbage out there on the web and they haven't always established sound criteria for evaluation), and effectively and creatively using it. From a Peircean perspective, the question regarding the purpose it is being used for begins to take on greater significance as well--I see it mainly through ethical lenses at the moment. I guess it's the difference between what my sort of experience has shown and what passes for `teaching' in the lecture theatre, that offers a place to start some kind of inquiry into just what `Higher Learning' entails in an era where `study&#
[peirce-l] Re: Dear Grace: (was: what is nothing.)
Jerry,
A very good game! We will try this soon and I will
reply with Grace's findings.
Thanks,
Darrel Summers
- Original Message -
From:
Jerry LR Chandler
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:16
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Dear Grace: (was:
what is nothing.)
Dear Grace:
Your daddy sent your pretty question to many people.
I thought about your question for quite a while, Grace, because it is a
tricky question and I like some tricky questions.
Sometimes it is best to play with questions a bit before you decide on a
good answer because it is difficult to use words to say what we mean.
Grace: Would you like to play a short game with your daddy?
Get four of your favorite toys and place one in each corner of an empty
box.
Ask you daddy to count them with you. One, two, three, four toys in
the four corners of the box.
Next, remove one toy and ask your daddy to count the remaining
things. One, two, three.
Remove another toy and ask your daddy to count the remaining
things. One, two.
Remove another thing and ask your daddy to count the remaining
thing. One thing remains.
Remove the last thing and ask your daddy to count the objects in the
box. No thing remains.
Now, ask you daddy how could he count no thing in the box.
If you look in the empty box, you can still count the four corners of the
box, one, two, three, four.
No thing is is any of the four corners of the empty box.
Now ask your daddy how did four "nothings" get into the empty box?
Grace, words are parts of our imagination. Some words point to
things in the real world and other words do not.
That is one reason why words are fun to play with.
I love words and I hope you love words too.
Sincerely
Jerry
(Darrel: would you read this to grace? I had fun composing
it!. JLRC)
On Feb 14, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest
wrote:
Darrel Summers wrote:
As the List Manager suggested I am introducing myself to the
forum. =
My purpose for subscribing was in response to
a question posed to me by =
my daughter Grace, age 5 years. Her question;
"what is nothing?" and my =
answer "the stuff left when you take away
everything..." led me to think =
more about the process of getting to nothing
and the concept of =
beginning and end. I hope by monitoring these
posts, and posting in my =
own non-acedemic style I might be better able
to offer Grace a =
meaningful answer. I also would like Grace to
be familiar with the value =
of communal / shared knowledge and
experiences.
Best Regards,
Darrel L Summers
Technology and Support Services
Marbaugh Reprographics Supply Co., Inc.
801 N Capitol Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317-631-1000 - www.marbaugh.com
Jerry LR Chandler
Research Professor
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
George Mason University
---Message from peirce-l
forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: "What is nothiing?" (was, Introduction)
Arnold, List Arnold said: ...one never bullshits one's way out of a childish question: kids remember what you tell them, and it would seem to be one of the laws of bullshit, not covered by Harry Frankfurt, that it is supremely difficult, if not impossible, to extricate oneself from one's earlier bullshit without liberal doses of subsequent bullshit. Put another way, dishonesty breeds dishonesty, and there is something in the way one loses a child's trust with dishonest answers that seems to me to poison their whole future in a mean-spirited way if one tries to bullshit a way through the difficulties of questions like `what is nothing?', or `why do we have cops?'. This is probably the most prudent bit of parenting advice I have heard in quite some time. I can attest to the brutally accurate memory of a child. Were it a requirement that as a prerequisite to parenting one should have to take a brief course on common sense I do believe we would have a world of happier, healthier children. Best to all, Darrel - Original Message - From: Arnold Shepperson To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:38 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: "What is nothiing?" (was, Introduction) Gary, Darrel, List Having a child in the house does put one's adulthood between a rock and a hard place, sometimes. My partner's grandson has been living with us for about six years (he's 10 now), the arrangment having become permanent since his dad died of AIDS two years ago. Although he hasn't quite got to the issue of Nothing as yet, our most enduring conversation since he began speaking English confidently (he is from a Zulu-speaking family, BTW) has been about Justice. One's adult status in this kind of situation seems not to involve any sort of capacity for providing authoritative answers, but the ability (and patience) to negotiate the rapids, rocks, and shoals that questions of this sort habitually throw up (yuck! I wrote that?). I think the earliest lesson this little guy taught me was that one never bullshits one's way out of a childish question: kids remember what you tell them, and it would seem to be one of the laws of bullshit, not covered by Harry Frankfurt, that it is supremely difficult, if not impossible, to extricate oneself from one's earlier bullshit without liberal doses of subsequent bullshit. Put another way, dishonesty breeds dishonesty, and there is something in the way one loses a child's trust with dishonest answers that seems to me to poison their whole future in a mean-spirited way if one tries to bullshit a way through the difficulties of questions like `what is nothing?', or `why do we have cops?'. In a way, part of the issue that Darrel has raised may be addressed by Peirce in his distinction between the practical forms of reasoning, and the differences between sham and fake reasoning. I'm not suggesting that Darrel should regale Grace with a formal disquisition on this, any more than I should read chapter and verse to Eddie-Lou. On the other hand, the distinction, and what Peirce has to say about it, seems very relevant to the way we speak to ourselves when we see ourselves close-up while shaving in the morning ... Cheers Arnold--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: "What is nothiing?" (was, Introduction)
Gary, One the best parts of sharing with a child is the unique childhood ability of absolute belief. Although I see doubt creeping in on a daily basis (I am afraid the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc have a short window of opportunity in our modern times), she still can see the absolute possibility / plausibility in anything (something, nothing, everything). That being said, tangent control may be an issue: So we discussed the word first. When she says she has "nothing" to play with she knows that she actually has more toys gadgets & gizmos than any child really needs but is not currently interested in any of them. So there are different kinds of nothing. Now we are getting somewhere until she breaks my straight line approach with a wrinkle Below, explained carefully, answered the wrinkled question, "why do people even care about what nothing is?" "Well someone cares, such as you my Dear, because didn't you ask me? Others ask too. When a lot of people ask we can get closer to the answer and do some amazing things along the way." Specifically as stated by Pierce below, "Who would have said, a few years ago, that we could ever know of what substances stars are made whose light may have been longer in reaching us than the human race has existed?" AND "And if it were to go on for a million, or a billion, or any number of years you please, how is it possible to say that there is any question which might not ultimately be solved? " And here not much more than 100 years later what have we accomplished - walks on the moon, pictures from the far reaches of our Solar System. From: How to Make Our Ideas Clear Popular Science Monthly 12 (January 1878), 286-302. Do these things not really exist because they are hopelessly beyond the reach of our knowledge? And then, after the universe is dead (according to the prediction of some scientists), and all life has ceased forever, will not the shock of atoms continue though there will be no mind to know it? To this I reply that, though in no possible state of knowledge can any number be great enough to express the relation between the amount of what rests unknown to the amount of the known, yet it is unphilosophical to suppose that, with regard to any given question (which has any clear meaning), investigation would not bring forth a solution of it, if it were carried far enough. Who would have said, a few years ago, that we could ever know of what substances stars are made whose light may have been longer in reaching us than the human race has existed? Who can be sure of what we shall not know in a few hundred years? Who can guess what would be the result of continuing the pursuit of science for ten thousand years, with the activity of the last hundred? And if it were to go on for a million, or a billion, or any number of years you please, how is it possible to say that there is any question which might not ultimately be solved? So we can get back to the original question, maybe for a few minutes anyway, while she has "nothing" to do. Regards, Darrel Summers - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: "What is nothiing?" (was, Introduction) Darrel, You wrote that: Grace thinks it is quite amusing that so many "smart grown-ups are worried about nothing..." (I think when she says worried she means fascinated) "From the mouths of babes. . ." Sometimes I worry too that grown-ups are "fascinated about nothing" by which I mean that they haven't necessarily got their values straight and so worry about the wrong things (such as keeping up with the Joneses, defending their egos, being "entertained," grabbing as much stuff as they can because "the guy who has the most stuff when he dies wins the game,' etc.) Of course when people prioritize such "nothings" then they've limited the time and energy that might be deployed for the development of "somethings," that is, some things of value, raising children properly, contributing to more Truth and Justice occurring in the world, promoting truly independent inquiry and journalism, promoting peace in the world (a point Maya Angelou stressed in her remarks at Coretta Scott King's funeral), etc., etc. We will be following with inthusiasm the forum and finding applicable writings where we can.We'll be looking forward to hearing from you (and Grace) as well. In your initial message to the forum you wrote of "posting in my own non-acedemic style" which suggests a refreshing aspect of this forum. One of the things that make it such a vibrant list, something that many have
[peirce-l] Re: "What is nothiing?" (was, Introduction)
Gary, I appreciate your plunge! I spent the weekend reading with great interest the posts related to Grace's question, and Grace thinks it is quite amusing that so many "smart grown-ups are worried about nothing..." (I think when she says worried she means fascinated) We will be following with inthusiasm the forum and finding applicable writings where we can. Hoping you own a sled dog or two... Regards, Darrel - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 6:05 PM Subject: [peirce-l] "What is nothing?" (was, Introduction) David,Welcome to the list. Your reasons for joining it seem to me the very best for doing philosophy, to offer a child of a new generation an approach to answering the profound philosophical (cenoscopic) questions she may have about life's meaning, and that perhaps the most promising method for arriving at true answers (or the closest we can get to this) is a communal inquiry having the value of coming out of "shared knowledge and experiences," as you phrased it. You may have come to just the right philosophical forum as this seems to me to be exactly the thrust of Peirce's pragmatism and approach to inquiry.May I plunge right in with a challenge to your answer to your child's question, "what is nothing?" You answered: ""the stuff left when you take away everything..." Now I'm taking it that perhaps you came here because you thought (or felt) somehow that your answer needed to be validated, or further explicated, or was insufficient in some way, say only partially right or partially satisfactory, or some such thought. Now I would hazard the guess that Peirce would have suggested that your answer defines a certain kind of nothing, namely the nothing or zero of subtraction, but that subtraction is not a first process... CP 6.211 [T]ake the continuum of all possible sense qualities after this has been so far restricted that the dimensions are distinct. This is a continuum in which firstness is the prevailing character. It is also highly primitive. . . . For zero is distinctly a dualistic idea. It is mathematically A - A, i.e. the result of the inverse process of subtraction. Now an inverse process is a Second process.But Peirce continues by commenting on "another sort of zero which is a limit." It is true that there is another sort of zero which is a limit. Such is the vague zero of indeterminacy. But a limit involves Secondness prominently, and besides that, Thirdness. In fact, the generality of indeterminacy marks its Thirdness. Accordingly, zero being an idea of Secondness, we find, as we should expect, that any continuum whose intermediate Listing numbers are zero is equivalent to a pair of continua whose Listing numbers are 1. He illustrates these categorial ideas and relations upon which he bases his theory of continuity by means of a famous blackboard example (to be found in the last of the 1898 Cambridge Conferences lectures, published as Reasoning and the Logic of Things, edited by Kenneth Lane Ketner and with an introduction by Ketner and Hillary Putnam)..Well, to cut to the chase, out of this move comes all of Peirce's synechastic and evolutionary philosophy, his theory of the generation of the early cosmos (what I've called Peirce's alternative to the Big Bang), evolutionary love and agapasm, etc. But it is also undoubtedly true that this original zero can be analyzed as chaos, as Peirce does at one point in the New Elements fragment currently being discussed on the list. Since his topic seems to me to be logic as semeiotic, this is represented by the blank sheet of assertion in his system of existential graphs--which, however, finally becomes the living symbol of an evolutionary cosmos within which we participate (more or less creatively, I would add).Well, my analysis might be quite flawed, and if it is I hope it'll be corrected. Well, that is just fallibilism, and every honest seeker benefits from it. Today I simply wanted to suggest that this sort of thinking (or whatever the truer, "corrected" form of it might be), the kind of thinking that leads to a philosophy of evolutionary love might prove to be a valuable supplement to your answer to Grace's question--and perhaps even some of the questions she's yet to ask! Again, welcome! Best,Gary RichmondDarrel Summers wrote: As the List Manager suggested I am introducing myself to the forum. My purpose for subscribing was in response to a question posed to me by my daughter Grace, age 5 years. Her question; "what is nothing?" and my answer "the stuff left when you take away everything..." led me to think more about the process of getting to nothing and the concept of beginning and end. I
[peirce-l] Re: Introduction
Tori, Being an optimist by nature, I typed www.nothing.com into my web browser. In a rare stroke of "Internet Luck" I was presented with a Pierce quote and a link to http://www.peirce.org/ and happened upon this forum. Another stroke of luck I must say. Darrel - Original Message - From: Victoria N. Alexander To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:43 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Introduction Welcome Darrel. Peirce's work is an excellent place to pursue this question. I share Grace's interest and curiosity. May I ask you how you arrived at this particular forum and not some other philosophical forum?Best, ToriVictoria Alexander, Ph.D.Dactyl Foundation for the Arts & Humanities64 Grand Street New York, NY 10013www.dactyl.orgOn Feb 10, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Darrel Summers wrote: As the List Manager suggested I am introducing myself to the forum. My purpose for subscribing was in response to a question posed to me by my daughter Grace, age 5 years. Her question; "what is nothing?" and my answer "the stuff left when you take away everything..." led me to think more about the process of getting to nothing and the concept of beginning and end. I hope by monitoring these posts, and posting in my own non-acedemic style I might be better able to offer Grace a meaningful answer. I also would like Grace to be familiar with the value of communal / shared knowledge and experiences. Best Regards,Darrel L SummersTechnology and Support ServicesMarbaugh Reprographics Supply Co., Inc.801 N Capitol AvenueIndianapolis, Indiana 46204317-631-1000 - www.marbaugh.com ***Norton Internet Security: outbound mail scanned and threat free***---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Introduction
As the List Manager suggested I am introducing myself to the forum. My purpose for subscribing was in response to a question posed to me by my daughter Grace, age 5 years. Her question; "what is nothing?" and my answer "the stuff left when you take away everything..." led me to think more about the process of getting to nothing and the concept of beginning and end. I hope by monitoring these posts, and posting in my own non-acedemic style I might be better able to offer Grace a meaningful answer. I also would like Grace to be familiar with the value of communal / shared knowledge and experiences. Best Regards, Darrel L SummersTechnology and Support ServicesMarbaugh Reprographics Supply Co., Inc.801 N Capitol AvenueIndianapolis, Indiana 46204317-631-1000 - www.marbaugh.com ***Norton Internet Security: outbound mail scanned and threat free*** --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
