Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
> > > 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 > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ⺠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 . > ⺠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 . > ⺠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] AndrÃÂé De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
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.
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
John, List 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"? Best, Helmut 21. August 2021 um 05:30 Uhr "John F. Sowa" wrote: 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.
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27
Gary F, List, GF: we agree that De Tiennes 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
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.
