Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Logic of Ingenuity

[CLARK GOBLE]

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Part 4, subtitled "Beyond Engineering," is now online at 
> http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107 .  
> It discusses how anyone can use the logic of ingenuity to imagine 
> possibilities, assess alternatives, and choose one of them to actualize.  I 
> have argued for years that just as science is perceived as an especially 
> systematic way of knowing, likewise engineering could be conceived as an 
> especially systematic way of willing; and if this is really the case, then 
> the distinctive reasoning process of engineers should be paradigmatic for 
> other kinds of decision-making, including ethical deliberation.

It seems a fundamental difference is that engineering presupposes stable 
knowledge from physics/chemistry. That is engineering in the contemporary sense 
(as opposed to practical construction in pre-modern times) requires knowledge 
of foundational rules to enable technological production. With regards to 
ethics though we simply don’t have anything like that due to the lack of agreed 
upon meta-ethics not to mention basic questions of whether ethics is knowable 
the way that physics is. (Even in a Peircean model ethical knowledge seems very 
unlike scientific knowledge and of course not everyone agree with Peirce!)

If ethical deliberation is like anything, it’s like pre-modern engineering with 
local norms rather than universal rules. The problem of course with premodern 
engineering, as amazing as things like the stone hedge, the pyramids or the 
works of Rome are, is that there are so many failures. That lack of 
predictability in a technological way where technology proceeds by accident 
likely is very much how we reason as a community ethically. That which is 
successful is kept as societal norms but the reasons for it and thus the 
ability to extend from the norms is lacking.

Now I think Peirce is able to explain both sorts of movements quite well with 
his critical common sensism. Yet that essential merging of the technological 
with the scientific that was lacking in premodern times lacks any equivalence 
with ethics.

Of course as you point out one can be systematic even when ones knowledge is 
more rules of thumb rather than universal laws. Yet the level of generality 
really does matter I think.
-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List, Jon:

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>  I have argued for years that just as science is perceived as an especially 
> systematic way of knowing, likewise engineering could be conceived as an 
> especially systematic way of willing; and if this is really the case, then 
> the distinctive reasoning process of engineers should be paradigmatic for 
> other kinds of decision-making, including ethical deliberation.

Your statement appears very sound to me.

I would add that the 
> engineering could be conceived as an especially systematic way of willing; 
is parallel to the phrase
“ synthetic chemistry could be conceived as an especially systematic way of 
willing molecules from atoms”

:-)

The parallel is in the concepts but differs in the scale of the logical objects.
Or, at least it had until nano-engineering started to be successful.

Cheers

Jerry
-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Stephen C. Rose]

OK, an ethical index. Do we agree a proper Peirce triad is Icon Index
Symbol? If so, do we agree that Peirce did not really flesh out his
thoughts about ethics and aesthetics though he valued both highly? If so,
do we agree that those who know such things will remind us that if Peirce
attached an order to ethics and aesthetics he placed aesthetics before
ethics? I think this is the case. Now I will say how I see it and explain.
I see ethics as the second in a progression that goes from icon-reality
through index-ethics through symbol-aesthetics (expression and or action).
The pragmatic maxim rendered understandable and sensible! The explanation
is everything I have written on Peirce since I found out anything about
him. It includes seeing ethics as an index of values and seeing
consideration of ethics as an inherent blunt truth aspect of considering
what one will say and do. I think to place aesthetics as the third,  in
opposition to Peirce if that order was important to him, has to do with the
central problem of aesthetics which is its captivity by the art world, made
possible by the late Professor Danto and others. For me, aesthetcs is the
whole thing, life here and now from its ugliest to the most beautiful. We
are all artists. Now to top this off, ask yourself why Mao's cultural
revolution was a miserable failure? I say it was because of its ethics. An
ethics that does not see the binary as the problem, conflict and violence
the outcome, is no ethic at all. The CR of Mao could only have succeeded as
an explicitly nonviolent movement. So too our future as well. That is a
little window on my placement of an ethical index in the central blunt
truth position that "his glassy essence" may not have seen.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Jon A.:  Thanks for your comments.
>
> Stephen:  Ditto.  Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "an
> ethical index" in this context?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Stephen C. Rose 
> wrote:
>
>> A sequential triadic means of actual practical life requires a step past
>> Peirce although all the elements of this sequential means are implicit in
>> his writings. I believe it is the need for an ethical index that must be
>> argued, along with the obvious point that only conscious action that is
>> considered can be said to count as a documentable indication of practical
>> results.
>>
>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>>
>>> Jon,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link.
>>>
>>> The duality or complementarity between Thought and Action (Dewey)
>>> or Information and Control (as later generations came to cast it
>>> within cybernetics, computer science, and the systems sciences)
>>> has always been an integral feature of Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim.
>>> Many of my early days on the Peirce List were exhausted in the
>>> effort to communicate the implications of that integration.
>>> But the pull toward Spectator Philosophies (James) is very
>>> persistent and it will no doubt take the exertion of many
>>> wills to overcome their one-sighted bias.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jon A.:  Thanks for your comments.

Stephen:  Ditto.  Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "an
ethical index" in this context?

Regards,

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

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Stephen C. Rose 
wrote:

> A sequential triadic means of actual practical life requires a step past
> Peirce although all the elements of this sequential means are implicit in
> his writings. I believe it is the need for an ethical index that must be
> argued, along with the obvious point that only conscious action that is
> considered can be said to count as a documentable indication of practical
> results.
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>
>> Jon,
>>
>> Thanks for the link.
>>
>> The duality or complementarity between Thought and Action (Dewey)
>> or Information and Control (as later generations came to cast it
>> within cybernetics, computer science, and the systems sciences)
>> has always been an integral feature of Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim.
>> Many of my early days on the Peirce List were exhausted in the
>> effort to communicate the implications of that integration.
>> But the pull toward Spectator Philosophies (James) is very
>> persistent and it will no doubt take the exertion of many
>> wills to overcome their one-sighted bias.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Gary Richmond]

Jon, Ben, list,

My apologies. I hardly ever do this any more, but rushed for time, I
managed to send this off-list message to the list. I don't think there's
anything 5oo personal or controversial in it, but I do hate doing this sort
of thing.

Best,

Gary


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> off-list
>
> Jon,
>
> I just read parts 3 and 4 of your series in succession. What a fine
> accomplishment. Perhaps if more scholars thought with your acuity and wrote
> with your clarity and efficiency (succinctness), Peirce studies might be
> much further along* in the world generally* than they are now. This is
> also to suggest that I have no problem with the notion of the
> "popularization" of Peircean pragmatism and semeiotic as long as his ideas
> aren't distorted in some limited personal use (the various 'thieves of
> Peirce' such as Charles Morris. Walker Percy--whom I may never forgive for
> setting Ken Ketner in the wrong=literary direction in writing his probably
> never to be completed proposed 3 voluem autobiography (stet) of Peirce as
> he was in the position and had all the tools, including the philosophical
> and mathematical ones, to write a definitive biography).
>
> But for now, and just speaking of your series, congratulations on an
> extraordinary accomplishment, a line of argumentation which, if followed
> and fully absorbed--that is, put into practice--might improve many a ones
> thinking *and willing*. It certainly is doing that for me!
>
> I'd like to write more in response to it on the list, but I spent al good
> portion of yesterday hangin' with the members of our NYC New Metaphysical
> Club, then the late afternoon commenting on a paper on truth and the
> nominalism vs realism question which Cathy Legg had posted on Academia for
> comment, an excellent effort to move philosophers in the direction of
> Peircean realism. Yet, as Kathleen Hull commented, culture as a whole
> (including philosophy of course) is dominated by nominalism. Hull wrote:
> "We are all nominalists, culturally;" and while this is not literally
> so--there are some notable exceptions--making the case for Peirce's brand
> of realism continues to be an uphill battle.
>
> In any event, I've little time to post anything today as I need to study
> some Zalamea in order to make sure that I can follow at least some of what
> he's saying this evening. The guy is so cutting edge that I think it will
> take even the mathematical community quite a while to catch up with him. In
> his precis on the Semiotics Web site he sets up three pairs of triads and I
> want see if they match up with Peirce's categories--when I first looked at
> that blurb I thought that they did not--so studying them is a principal
> task of my afternoon. I'm glad that Jeff suggested our setting up a way to
> attend remotely. Are you planning to GoToMeeting?
>
> The members of the NMC all agree that the paper you linked to (== the
> first four chapters of Fernando's book on continuity), might make an
> excellent slow read on list, and I hope to discuss this with him after his
> talk this evening. Of the several suggestions I've received for a slow
> read, I think that Z's paper makes the most sense for now especially since,
> as Ben mentioned at our NMC lunch meeting yesterday, that there seems to be
> quite a bit of interest in continuity on the list. As you probably
> know--and may even agree--I see Z is the modern master on the topic.
>
> So, again, thanks for your 4 paper series (I'll read the first two
> installments again when I get the chance) and especially those last two
> papers (btw, I began the 3rd this morning thinking it was the 4th, and am
> very glad I did). More sooner--I hope--than later. Lots to talk about.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gary
>
> PS While the hip replacement is in good shape, I'm still on crutches
> because of the muscle tear in my thigh. I have a feeling it will be a long
> time healing. James is going to drive me one way, but I'm going to hazard
> public transportation going there. Wish me luck!
>
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> List:
>>
>> Part 4, subtitled "Beyond Engineering," is now online at
>> http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107.  It discusses how *anyone *can use
>> the logic of ingenuity to imagine possibilities, assess alternatives, and
>> choose one of them to actualize.  I have argued for years that just as
>> science is perceived as an especially systematic way of *knowing*,
>> likewise engineering could be conceived as an 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Invitation to a ttend a talk by Fernando Zalamea, March 1, 2017, NYC

[Gary Richmond]

List,

This is a reminder that Fernando Zalamea's talk at the Microsoft Technology
Center, 11 Times Square, is happening tonight,3 2/1/17 at 6:30.

If you are not in the city or have not registered at the Semiotics Web
site, you might consider attending the talk remotely. To do so register for
the meetup here https://www.meetup.com/SemioticsWeb/events/237584711/?

Bev Corwin will be posting a GoToMeeting link at the start of the meeting
(two short talks are at 6:00) and you can attend remotely. Note that you
will be on the waiting list, but you'll still have the GoToMeeting link
available. Thanks to Jeff Downard for suggesting that we provide remote
access, and to Terry Moore for his willingness to provide technical support
if needed.

I know that several of the members of this forum will be at the talk; I
look forward to seeing you this evening and especially to hearing Fernando.

Here is a précis of the talk which Fernando provided. More information is
on the Semiotics Web meetup/mashup sitelinked to above.

(1) Some main philosophical perspectives will be presented along a double
semiotic triad (closed: relativization, analysis, differentiation) (open:
universalization, synthesis, integration), and the back-and-forth transits
between differentiation and integration will be explored. Poets like
Novalis and Valéry, and cultural critics like Warburg and Benjamin, will
lead the way. The role of contemporary poetess Jan Zwicky will be
highlighted.

(2) Some main mathematical perspectives will be presented along a double
semiotic triad (closed: logicization, punctualization, typification) (open:
geometrization, sheafification, archetypification), and the back-and-forth
transits between localization and globalization will be explored.
Mathematicians like Galois, Riemann and Grothendieck will lead the way. The
role of modern mathematician Emmy Noether will be highlighted.

(3) Some main logical perspectives will be presented along a double
semiotic triad (closed: sintaxis, classicism, completeness) (open:
pragmatics, intuitionism, incompleteness), and the back-and-forth transits
between positivity and negativity will be explored. Logicians like Peirce,
Gödel and Girard will lead the way. The role of contemporary logician
Olivia Caramello will be highlighted.


Best,

Gary R




[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> Bev Corbin (Semiotic Web) and I have arranged for a talk by Fernando
> Zalamea to be delivered at Microsoft Technology Center, 11 Times Square, New
> York, NY on Wednesday, March 1 from 6 to 8 (see details below).
>
> Those of us who were fortunate enough to have attended his series of
> seminars at the Pratt Institute Graduate Center in Media Studies
> (Manhattan) in October of 2015, or who have read his books, the most recent
> being *Peirce's Logic of Continuity: A Conceptual and Mathematical
> Approach*, cannot but be impressed by his towering intellect, the depth
> and breadth of his knowledge in many domains and, perhaps most especially,
> his humanity.
>
> I see Fernando as an interdisciplinary polymath, something of what used to
> be called "a Renaissance man." His interests range across a multitude of
> arts and sciences including, of course, Peirce studies (for example, he
> sponsored a Peirce-centered conference in Bogata last year which some on
> this list attended and contributed to).
>
> I hope that those of you who live in or near NYC will join us on March 1
> for what is sure to be an extraordinary event
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
> Global to Local Architectonics
>
>-
>Wednesday, March 1, 20176:00 PM to 8:00 PM
>-
>Microsoft
>
> 
>
>Microsoft Technology Center, 11 Times Square, New York, NY
>- *Please check in at the security desk. You will need to register
>with your complete name and have your matching photo ID.*
>-
>
>Global to Local Architectonics: Philosophical, mathematical, and
>logical resistances. An architectonics of elementary semiotic triads,
>obstructions, and transits for our contemporary world
>
>Fernando Zalamea, Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional de
>Colombia Received his Ph.D. in Logic and Category Theory (University of
>Massachusetts 1990) under Ernest Manes. Full Professor of the Departmento
>de Matematicas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, he has been coordinating
>since 2007 the Colombian Center on Peircean Studies (
>accervopeirceano.org ) and is the editor of Cuadernos de Sistematica
>Peirceana.
>
>The presentation will be divided in three parts:
>
>(1) Some main philosophical perspectives will be presented along a
>double 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

List:

Part 4, subtitled "Beyond Engineering," is now online at
http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107.  It discusses how *anyone *can use
the logic of ingenuity to imagine possibilities, assess alternatives, and
choose one of them to actualize.  I have argued for years that just as
science is perceived as an especially systematic way of *knowing*, likewise
engineering could be conceived as an especially systematic way of *willing*;
and if this is really the case, then the distinctive reasoning process of
engineers *should* be paradigmatic for other kinds of decision-making,
including ethical deliberation.

Regards,

Jon

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> List:
>
> Part 3, subtitled "Engineering Reasoning," is now online at
> http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10592.  It discusses how engineers use the
> logic of ingenuity to simulate contingent events with necessary reasoning.
> This is my attempt to explain Peirce's whole notion of diagrammatic
> reasoning, using a variety of quotes from his writings.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> List:
>>
>> I meant to post this back around the first of the month, and then kept
>> forgetting to do so.  Part 2, subtitled "Engineering Analysis," is now
>> online at http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10490.  It discusses how
>> engineers use the logic of ingenuity to solve real problems by analyzing
>> fictitious ones.  It mostly consists of quotes from and comments on CP
>> 3.559, which is part of Peirce's 1898 article in *Educational Review*,
>> "The Logic of Mathematics in Relation to Education" (
>> http://www.pragmaticism.net/works/csp_ms/P00653.pdf).  It is the passage
>> that opened up to me this whole understanding of engineering thinking, when
>> I first encountered it in the volume edited by Matthew E. Moore, *Philosophy
>> of Mathematics:  Selected Writings*.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> List:
>>>
>>> In an effort to apply Peirce's thought to my profession of engineering,
>>> as well as introduce it to my fellow practitioners, I have written a
>>> four-part series of articles under this heading for *STRUCTURE* magazine.
>>> Part 1, subtitled "Engineering Design," appears in the September issue and
>>> is also posted online.
>>>
>>> http://www.STRUCTUREmag.org/?p=10373
>>>
>>> In summary, I am defining "the logic of ingenuity" as the process of
>>> (abductively) creating a diagrammatic representation of a problem and its
>>> proposed solution, and then (deductively) working out the necessary
>>> consequences, such that this serves as an adequate substitute for
>>> (inductively) evaluating the actual situation.  This first installment
>>> discusses how engineers use it to design particular artifacts for specific
>>> purposes, and connects it with many of my previous writings for the same
>>> publication.
>>>
>>> Any and all feedback is welcome!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>>
>>

-
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 .