Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triad vs Degenerate triad (was Peirce
Mike B: This is the best explanation and defense of Edwina's constant argument for Peirce's triadic representation yet. I would not be surprised that Charley would like it himself. Thanks for the compliment. But I'm sure that Charley visualized it very clearly. My only contribution is to label the nodes for people who still think in terms of ninth-grade algebra. CSP spent so many years thinking in diagrams that he didn't realize that his readers were still thinking in linear notations. It[s a pity that he didn't have fresh crops of students to remind him. John On 10/12/2021 9:45 PM, sowa @bestweb.net wrote: The difference between a trianglular graph and a Y graph can be seen in the translation to some version of logic, either linear or graphic. If we label the three nodes a, b, and c, the triangle can be represented by three dyadic relations: R(a,b) & S(b,c) & T(c,a). But the Y requires an irreducible triadic connection: R(a,b,c). Some people would object that a Y can be replaced by introducing a new variable x, and using three dyadic relations: R(x,a) & S(x,b) & T(x,c). But note what happened: the new variable x now has a triadic connection to the three relations R, S, T. If you draw those linear expressions as graphs, you will find that there is a Y shaped graph with the variable x at the center instead of the relation R at the center. No mattter which choice of variables and relations you choose, there is no way to eliminate a Y-shaped triad. The point in the center is either the name off a relation or the name of a variable. Conclusion: The triangle is a degenerate triad because it can be replaced by three dyads. But the Y is a genuine triad because no transformation can get rid of a triadic connection in the graph. 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] Genuine triad vs Degenerate triad (was Peirce & Popper
John, This is the best explanation and defense of Edwina's constant argument for Peirce's triadic representation yet. I would not be surprised that Charley would like it himself. Mike On 10/12/2021 9:45 PM, sowa @bestweb.net wrote: The difference between a trianglular graph and a Y graph can be seen in the translation to some version of logic, either linear or graphic. If we label the three nodes a, b, and c, the triangle can be represented by three dyadic relations: R(a,b) & S(b,c) & T(c,a). But the Y requires an irreducible triadic connection: R(a,b,c). Some people would object that a Y can be replaced by introducing a new variable x, and using three dyadic relations: R(x,a) & S(x,b) & T(x,c). But note what happened: the new variable x now has a triadic connection to the three relations R, S, T. If you draw those linear expressions as graphs, you will find that there is a Y shaped graph with the variable x at the center instead of the relation R at the center. No mattter which choice of variables and relations you choose, there is no way to eliminate a Y-shaped triad. The point in the center is either the name off a relation or the name of a variable. Conclusion: The triangle is a degenerate triad because it can be replaced by three dyads. But the Y is a genuine triad because no transformation can get rid of a triadic connection in the graph. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go topeirc...@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but tol...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More athttps://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. -- __ Michael K. Bergman 319.621.5225 http://mkbergman.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman http://cognonto.com __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
[PEIRCE-L] Genuine triad vs Degenerate triad (was Peirce & Popper
The difference between a trianglular graph and a Y graph can be seen in the translation to some version of logic, either linear or graphic. If we label the three nodes a, b, and c, the triangle can be represented by three dyadic relations: R(a,b) & S(b,c) & T(c,a). But the Y requires an irreducible triadic connection: R(a,b,c). Some people would object that a Y can be replaced by introducing a new variable x, and using three dyadic relations: R(x,a) & S(x,b) & T(x,c). But note what happened: the new variable x now has a triadic connection to the three relations R, S, T. If you draw those linear expressions as graphs, you will find that there is a Y shaped graph with the variable x at the center instead of the relation R at the center. No mattter which choice of variables and relations you choose, there is no way to eliminate a Y-shaped triad. The point in the center is either the name off a relation or the name of a variable. Conclusion: The triangle is a degenerate triad because it can be replaced by three dyads. But the Y is a genuine triad because no transformation can get rid of a triadic connection in the graph. 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.
[PEIRCE-L] What are the Arguments for Atheism? The Logic and Religion Webinar, October 14
Dear Colleague, You are invited to participate in the next session of the Logic and Religion Webinar Series which will be held on October 14, 2021 at 4pm CEST with the topic: WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM? Speakers: Piergiorgio Odifreddi (University of Turin, Italy), Jan Woleński (Jagiellonian University, Poland) Chair: Stanisław Krajewski (University of Warsaw, Poland) Please register in advance! https://www.logicandreligion.com/webinars With best wishes, Francisco de Assis Mariano LARA Secretary The University of Missouri-Columbia (USA) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
[PEIRCE-L] What are the Arguments for Atheism? The Logic and Religion Webinar, October 14
Dear Colleague, You are invited to participate in the next session of the Logic and Religion Webinar Series which will be held on October 14, 2021 at 4pm CEST with the topic: WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM?Speakers: Piergiorgio Odifreddi (University of Turin, Italy), Jan Woleński (Jagiellonian University, Poland)Chair: Stanisław Krajewski (University of Warsaw, Poland) The session will be held via Zoom through the following link:https://umsystem.zoom.us/j/97219022291?pwd=NnVaQUl6ZncrNitZM2tFWkR1TldlZz09 For more information about the webinar schedule and speakers please check the link:https://www.logicandreligion.com/webinars Join us 10-5 minutes prior to the beginning of the session! With best wishes, ---Ricardo Sousa Silvestre, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Federal University of Campina Grandehttps://www.logicandreligion.com/silvestre New Publications:On the Representation of the Concept of God (Philosophia, 2021)Inductive Plausibility and Certainty (In: Philosophical Approaches to the Foundations of Logics and Mathematics, Brill, 2021)The Classical Theory of Concepts and the Concept of God (Filosofia Unisinos, 2021)Beyond Faith and Rationality: Essays on Logic, Religion and Philosophy (Springer Science, 2020) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
[PEIRCE-L] Conceptual Barriers
Cf: Conceptual Barriers • 4 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/12/conceptual-barriers-4/ Re: Conceptual Barriers • 1 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/05/08/conceptual-barriers-1/ Re: Peirce List https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/thrd4.html#00111 ::: John Sowa https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/msg00111.html ::: Gary Richmond https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/msg00114.html ::: Robert Marty https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/msg00119.html Dear Robert, I believe you have pointed to the crux of the matter. When I arrived on the campus of my first university in the late '60s there was already in progress some sort of year-long cross-campus “Colloquium” or “Dialogue” going on — with many invited speakers and representatives from all the colleges and departments, springing from the issues raised by C.P. Snow's 1959 lecture on “The Two Cultures”. About the same time the University instituted three new residential colleges in cross-cultural liberal arts, “statecraft” (a mix of history, law, and political science), and the bridge between science and society. I confess it was all over the head of a first year student with his brain buried in math and physics with a minor in beer but I did get a whiff now and then of a sea change in the air. A Möbius twist of fate and my room-mate's hankering to find a dorm with a reputation for better food soon led me to relocate to the residence hall housing the “relevant science” people. They all took courses with titles like “Third Cultural Rhetoric” and so I osmoted some of that synthesis from my brushes with the crew of that Enterprise. Plus I met my future wife. ⁂ Poking around the web I see I already began this story two years ago, in connection with remarks John Sowa made in the Ontolog Forum as to “Why A Single Unified Ontology Is Impossible”. I've also just realized how one of the main themes of the present discussion links up with what I wrote earlier about the “Immune System Metaphor” — so I can save myself the effort of crafting new syntax by continuing the story as I did before under the heading of Conceptual Barriers. ⁂ Long time passing, I found myself returning to these questions around the turn of the millennium, addressing the “problem of silos” and the “scholarship of integration” from the perspective of Peirce's and Dewey's pragmatism and semiotics. Here's a couple of contributions Susan Awbrey and I made to the area. Conference Presentation === • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (1999), “Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century”, Second International Conference of the Journal ‘Organization’, Re-Organizing Knowledge, Trans-Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm Published Paper === • Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, 269–284. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350508401082013 https://www.academia.edu/1266492/Conceptual_Barriers_to_Creating_Integrative_Universities 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 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] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century (was Dimensionality
Dear robert, John, Gary, list, robert said: we *must* make, collectively and in the long run, a rational representative construction of Peirce's work that is communicable with a minimum of effort. To reach this goal, we must not fall into a dialogue of the deaf. and John said: It's important to recognize that we are all sinners, and to do our *best* to promote more constructive discussions. To which, Gary said: I agree. And in a philosophical forum such as this, to "do our best" is to *be as reasonable as it is possible for each of us to be*. After all, 'reasonableness' is Peirce's *summum bonum *of philosophical esthetics, which principle accepted and followed can then ground philosophical ethics.. The 'sin' -- for philosophy, logic, and science more generally -- is being *un*reasonable. As you concluded: "Occasional lapses may occur. But we should do our best.” So let us do our best! For ‘*what is, is best!*’ And if not, *It seems almost ridiculous that, while every other science moves forward ceaselessly,* *This one claiming to be wisdom itself, whose oracular pronouncements everyone consults, * *is continually revolving in one spot without advancing a step.* For Peirce was sure that by himself, or perhaps by some young people trained by him, it would be finished. This height of all sciences, this self- knowledge of reason, the new metaphysics or however you would call it, would be finished completely by Peirce or, at the latest, in the generation after Peirce and then there could not be any further progress . . . Of course, this is a very popular and provisional statement, but it is still revealing. That is, *revealing* in spite of Peirce’s self-proclaimed statements about being a “pioneer, a backwoodsman, a first-comer, scattered outcroppings and unpublished rich vein that no human being could ever put together” and all that.. With best wishes, Jerry R On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:44 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > List > > thank you Robert, for this analysis. But I'm beginning to think that the > Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of Peirce and his > analytic framework in the 21st century. > > After all - some of us have been trying for years to introduce > current scientific and other research areas [linguistic, AI, societal, > economic] and explore how the Peircean framework, in different terms, is > being used to examine these fields. We've been met with a refusal to engage > in any discussion and/or, an open almost horror of such an approach. We've > been told that 'Peirce never used such words'; ...and...your focus is > 'post-Peirce'.I think that this phrase of 'post-Peirce' makes it very clear > that the Peirce-List can't handle such a movement. Or we've been > told 'no-where in the texts did Peirce discuss such an issue'. That is, the > feeling seems to be that to venture into these modern areas is somehow > tainting or harming not merely the value but the legitimacy of Peirce. > > I suggest that what is needed - after all these fruitless years of trying > to introduce the examination of the Peircean framework in the 21st century > fields of research of our world..what is needed is a NEW LIST. It could > be affiliated or somehow 'accepted' by the Peirce-List - but, it would > be specifically open to this modern world. It would not object to > non-Peircean terms or research areas - but would be engaged in showing how > these modern areas are actually using the Peircean framework and how > further use can help those research fields. There would be no need for > members on this new List to be 'cautioned' that they were 'post Peirce' or > using 'non-Peirce' terms. The focus would be on the meaning of these > research areas and their relevance to Peirce. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 12/10/21 6:59 AM , robert marty robert.mart...@gmail.com sent: > > Gary R., John, List, > > It is necessary, in the first place, to consider that the text of which we > speak is, in the field of knowledge, a true "continent," a metaphor of > Jean-Marie Chevallier[1] <#m_-6251563585640681687__ftn1>, a particularly > accurate metaphor that illustrates its extent, its complexity, the variety > of its territories. Inside we find in particular semiotics and logic of > which Peirce said himself: > > I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the work > of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of > the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible semiosis; and I > find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a first-comer. I am, > accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most important questions. > (CP 5.488) [emphasize mine] > > And of the only writings related to logic, he said: > > All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply scattered > outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains unpublished. Most > of it I suppose has been written
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century (was Dimensionality
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
thank you Robert, for this analysis. But I'm beginning to think that
the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of Peirce
and his analytic framework in the 21st century.
After all - some of us have been trying for years to introduce
current scientific and other research areas [linguistic, AI,
societal, economic] and explore how the Peircean framework, in
different terms, is being used to examine these fields. We've been
met with a refusal to engage in any discussion and/or, an open almost
horror of such an approach. We've been told that 'Peirce never used
such words'; ...and...your focus is 'post-Peirce'.I think that this
phrase of 'post-Peirce' makes it very clear that the Peirce-List
can't handle such a movement. Or we've been told 'no-where in the
texts did Peirce discuss such an issue'. That is, the feeling seems
to be that to venture into these modern areas is somehow tainting or
harming not merely the value but the legitimacy of Peirce.
I suggest that what is needed - after all these fruitless years of
trying to introduce the examination of the Peircean framework in the
21st century fields of research of our world..what is needed is a
NEW LIST. It could be affiliated or somehow 'accepted' by the
Peirce-List - but, it would be specifically open to this modern
world. It would not object to non-Peircean terms or research areas -
but would be engaged in showing how these modern areas are actually
using the Peircean framework and how further use can help those
research fields. There would be no need for members on this new List
to be 'cautioned' that they were 'post Peirce' or using 'non-Peirce'
terms. The focus would be on the meaning of these research areas and
their relevance to Peirce.
Edwina
On Tue 12/10/21 6:59 AM , robert marty robert.mart...@gmail.com
sent:
Gary R., John, List,
It is necessary, in the first place, to consider that the text of
which we speak is, in the field of knowledge, a true "continent," a
metaphor of Jean-Marie Chevallier[1], a particularly accurate
metaphor that illustrates its extent, its complexity, the variety of
its territories. Inside we find in particular semiotics and logic of
which Peirce said himself:
I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the
work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the
doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of
possible semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too
great, for a first-comer. I am, accordingly, obliged to confine
myself to the most important questions. (CP 5.488) [emphasize mine]
And of the only writings related to logic, he said:
All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply
scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains
unpublished. Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human
being could ever put together the fragments. I could not myself do so.
(CP 2.1)[emphasize mine]
The Peircean text, which contains so much richness, depth, and
freedom of thought, diversity, creative anticipations when delivered
to interpretation, concerns all the fields of knowledge that are
potential places of conflict. Let us be clear: these conflicts should
be organized as competitions giving rise to debates marked by loyalty
and mutual respect. This is what generally happens in the Exact (or
hard) Sciences. Indeed, constitutionally, one can agree, within them,
on objective criteria of truth. This is obvious for mathematics and
the formal models they structure, much less for the observational
sciences, which depend on data processing. On the other hand, for the
Humanities and Social Sciences, pejoratively qualified as "soft," the
oppositions can be lively and appeal to arguments of authority based
on established disciplinary hierarchies or simply on positions of
power occupied in academic or associative organizations. The
"Peircean continent, "which extends over the whole of knowledge,
accumulates not only the occasions of interpersonal, inter-group, and
even inter-organizational oppositions internal to each camp, but also
and above all the more radical oppositions between the camp of the "
hard " and the camp of the " soft "if we follow the metaphor. This
"continent" is crossed by a large gap between the "hard" and the
"soft" terms that finally plunge us into anthropology. I recall in
this respect that, following the anthropologist Claude Lévy-Strauss,
we find on the hard side the "engineers" and on the "soft" side the "
bricoleurs." Lévy-Strauss experienced a happy collaboration between
the two camps by calling upon the mathematician André Weil; this is,
in my opinion, an example to follow.
This is a question that has not ceased to be asked precisely because
of the undeniable success of the Exact Sciences. This success has led
many
[PEIRCE-L] Lewis Carroll’s Symbolic Logic: Why Make Things Simple When You Can Make Them Complicated?
This coming Wednesday, October 13, at 4 pm CET, one more session of the Logica Universalis Webinar (LUW). It will be dedicated to Lewis Carroll’s logic. See details below. Everybody is welcome to join ! Register in advance here: https://www.springer.com/journal/11787/updates/18988758 Also recently published "Lewis Carroll: Logic" by Fancine Abeles in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) https://iep.utm.edu/car-logi/ and a workshop on Lewis Carroll at UNILOG'2022: https://sites.google.com/view/unilog-2022/workshops/lewis-carrolls-logic Jean-Yves Beziau Organizer of LUW, Logic Area Editor of IEP, President of LUA http://www.logica-universalis.org/LUAD > Amirouche Moktefi (Ragnar Nurkse Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia) "Why Make Things Simple When You Can Make Them Complicated? An Appreciation of Lewis Carroll’s Symbolic Logic" Logica Universalis, volume 15, pages359–379 (2021) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11787-021-00286-1 Lewis Carroll (1832–1898) published a system of logic in the symbolic tradition that developed in his time. Carroll’s readers may be puzzled by his system. On the one hand, it introduced innovations, such as his logic notation, his diagrams and his method of trees, that secure Carroll’s place on the path that shaped modern logic. On the other hand, Carroll maintained the existential import of universal affirmative Propositions, a feature that is rather characteristic of traditional logic. The object of this paper is to untangle this dilemma by exploring Carroll’s guidelines in the design of his logic, and in particular his theory of existential import. It will be argued that Carroll’s view reflected his belief in the social utility of symbolic logic. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] Peirce's Contributions to the 21st Century
Dear Robert, I believe you have pointed to the crux of the matter. When I arrived on the campus of my first university in the late '60s there was already in progress some sort of year-long cross-campus “Colloquium” or “Dialogue” going on — with many invited speakers and representatives from all the colleges and departments, springing from the issues raised by C.P. Snow's 1959 lecture on “The Two Cultures”. About the same time the University instituted three new residential colleges in cross-cultural liberal arts, “statecraft” (a mix of history, law, and political science), and the bridge between science and society. I confess it was all over the head of a first year student with his brain buried in math and physics with a minor in beer but I did get a whiff now and then of a big sea change in the air. A Möbius twist of fate and my room-mate's hankering to find a dorm with a reputation for better food soon led me to relocate to the residence hall housing the “relevant science” people. They all took courses with titles like “Third Cultural Rhetoric” and so I osmoted some of that synthesis from my brushes with the crew of that Enterprise. Plus I met my future wife. To be continued ... Regards, Jon On 10/12/2021 6:59 AM, robert marty wrote: Gary R., John, List, It is necessary, in the first place, to consider that the text of which we speak is, in the field of knowledge, a true "continent," a metaphor of Jean-Marie Chevallier[1] <#_ftn1>, a particularly accurate metaphor that illustrates its extent, its complexity, the variety of its territories. Inside we find in particular semiotics and logic of which Peirce said himself: *I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman**, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a first-comer. I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most important questions.* (CP 5.488) [emphasize mine] And of the only writings related to logic, he said: *All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains unpublished. Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human being could ever put together the fragments. I could not myself do so. *(CP 2.1)[emphasize mine] The Peircean text, which contains so much richness, depth, and freedom of thought, diversity, creative anticipations when delivered to interpretation, concerns all the fields of knowledge that are potential places of conflict. Let us be clear: these conflicts should be organized as competitions giving rise to debates marked by loyalty and mutual respect. This is what generally happens in the Exact (or hard) Sciences. Indeed, constitutionally, one can agree, within them, on objective criteria of truth. This is obvious for mathematics and the formal models they structure, much less for the observational sciences, which depend on data processing. On the other hand, for the Humanities and Social Sciences, pejoratively qualified as "soft," the oppositions can be lively and appeal to arguments of authority based on established disciplinary hierarchies or simply on positions of power occupied in academic or associative organizations. The "Peircean continent, "which extends over the whole of knowledge, accumulates not only the occasions of interpersonal, inter-group, and even inter-organizational oppositions internal to each camp, but also and above all the more radical oppositions between the camp of the " hard " and the camp of the " soft "if we follow the metaphor. This "continent" is crossed by a large gap between the "hard" and the "soft" terms that finally plunge us into anthropology. I recall in this respect that, following the anthropologist Claude Lévy-Strauss, we find on the hard side the "engineers" and on the "soft" side the " bricoleurs." Lévy-Strauss experienced a happy collaboration between the two camps by calling upon the mathematician André Weil; this is, in my opinion, an example to follow. This is a question that has not ceased to be asked precisely because of the undeniable success of the Exact Sciences. This success has led many researchers in the Humanities and Social Sciences to look for statutes adapted to the specificities of their field to reach, if not approach, that of the Hard Sciences. For example, the Tartu Moscow Semiotics School mixes two postures: *"For the representatives of this School semiotics was, rather than a particular field of knowledge with its axiomatics and methodology, a key that determined their approach to the most diverse phenomena of human culture and to see important similarities between them" *(Ouspenski, 2015: 30). while the emblematic founder Yuri Lotman himself makes this confession: *"[...] when I take a theoretical step forward, it goes without saying that I do not think about whether it
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century (was Dimensionality
Gary R., John, List, It is necessary, in the first place, to consider that the text of which we speak is, in the field of knowledge, a true "continent," a metaphor of Jean-Marie Chevallier[1] <#_ftn1>, a particularly accurate metaphor that illustrates its extent, its complexity, the variety of its territories. Inside we find in particular semiotics and logic of which Peirce said himself: *I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman**, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a first-comer. I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most important questions.* (CP 5.488) [emphasize mine] And of the only writings related to logic, he said: *All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains unpublished. Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human being could ever put together the fragments. I could not myself do so. *(CP 2.1)[emphasize mine] The Peircean text, which contains so much richness, depth, and freedom of thought, diversity, creative anticipations when delivered to interpretation, concerns all the fields of knowledge that are potential places of conflict. Let us be clear: these conflicts should be organized as competitions giving rise to debates marked by loyalty and mutual respect. This is what generally happens in the Exact (or hard) Sciences. Indeed, constitutionally, one can agree, within them, on objective criteria of truth. This is obvious for mathematics and the formal models they structure, much less for the observational sciences, which depend on data processing. On the other hand, for the Humanities and Social Sciences, pejoratively qualified as "soft," the oppositions can be lively and appeal to arguments of authority based on established disciplinary hierarchies or simply on positions of power occupied in academic or associative organizations. The "Peircean continent, "which extends over the whole of knowledge, accumulates not only the occasions of interpersonal, inter-group, and even inter-organizational oppositions internal to each camp, but also and above all the more radical oppositions between the camp of the " hard " and the camp of the " soft "if we follow the metaphor. This "continent" is crossed by a large gap between the "hard" and the "soft" terms that finally plunge us into anthropology. I recall in this respect that, following the anthropologist Claude Lévy-Strauss, we find on the hard side the "engineers" and on the "soft" side the " bricoleurs." Lévy-Strauss experienced a happy collaboration between the two camps by calling upon the mathematician André Weil; this is, in my opinion, an example to follow. This is a question that has not ceased to be asked precisely because of the undeniable success of the Exact Sciences. This success has led many researchers in the Humanities and Social Sciences to look for statutes adapted to the specificities of their field to reach, if not approach, that of the Hard Sciences. For example, the Tartu Moscow Semiotics School mixes two postures: *"For the representatives of this School semiotics was, rather than a particular field of knowledge with its axiomatics and methodology, a key that determined their approach to the most diverse phenomena of human culture and to see important similarities between them" *(Ouspenski, 2015: 30). while the emblematic founder Yuri Lotman himself makes this confession: *"[...] when I take a theoretical step forward, it goes without saying that I do not think about whether it is Saussure or Peirce. Otherwise it would be impossible to work. [...]. To tell the truth, ... in general I am not interested in the models of the sign. What interests me is above all the applied aspects of semiotics ...**"* (Velmezova, 2015: 19) Some even tried to tinker with forms or cosmetic modifications of their discourse (see the Sokal affair[2] <#_ftn2>) only to imitate the hard sciences. One will easily find examples of this in the Peircean field. I have commented on this list about the representation of the triad by a triangle or the improbable invention of broken vectors. The gap is not new; here is an excerpt from one of my forthcoming articles: "Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, moralist, and theologian, an intellectual profile of researcher comparable to that of Peirce. Indeed, Pascal noted a strong discrepancy between what he called "the spirit of geometry" and "the spirit of finesse": *"Difference between the spirit of geometry and the spirit of finesse[...] All geometers would therefore be subtle if they had good eyesight because they do not reason wrongly on the principles they know. And subtle minds would be geometricians if they could bend **their sight toward the
