[PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and the classification of the sciences

[sowa @bestweb.net]

Dear Bernard, Robert, List,
  
  
 I have more to say about the policies for Peirce list, but first I'd like 
to comment on this topic.


 Bernard:  I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be 
cleared up independently of the question of classification of sciences. On 
the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an unknown 
thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic of the 
categories.   
 Robert:  my question is: does this "a priori trichotomy derived from the 
logic of the categories" fall from the sky or rather from the mathematical 
repository with 1- the triadic reduction theorem of the relational 
structures; 2- a Poset 3-->2-->1 which is the form of the phaneroscopic 
categories incorporating their interdependence relationship; all in the 
well of the truth?
  
 Those are important questions, and I suspect that Peirce's 1903 
classification of the sciences made it impossible for phaneroscopy to grow 
beyond a science egg.  By placing phaneroscopy after mathematics (which 
includes formal logic), Peirce could use his logic (either algebraic or 
diagrammatic) for representing monadic, dyadic, and triadic predicates.  Bu 
t by placing normative science after phaneroscopy, he was unable to use 
normative principles for evaluating interpretations and relations among 
them.
  
 Another serious limitation of the 1903 classification:  The science of 
semeiotic, which is one of Peirce's most outstanding contributions, does 
not appear anywhere in his classification.  I believe that is a serious 
absence in the classification.  One way to remedy it would be to merge 
phaneroscopy with normative science.  This is close to what Atkins was 
suggesting in his attempt to broaden phaneroscopy.
  
 I mentioned this point in an earlier note, and Jon AS immediately jumped 
on my remark as something that Peirce never said.  That is indeed true.  
But in his long note of 1913, he wrote that he had many vague and 
incomplete ideas that he never wrote in his MSS.  This may be one of the 
puzzles he hadn't fully worked out.  In that long lettter, he wrote that he 
was planning o write another book.
  
 Nobody knows what Peirce intended to write, and nobody knows how he might 
hatch that science egg.  This is a very important topic for further 
discussion.
  
 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] Instinct, intuition and semiosis

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

I am not the one claiming to be defining and applying "*THE* Peircean
analytic framework." As spelled out in his texts, there is much more to it
than "using the three categories in both their genuine and degenerate
modes" and/or "using the triadic semiosic process to show both necessary
and adaptive interactions." What exactly are "the three categories"? What
exactly are "their genuine and degenerate modes"? What exactly is "the
triadic semiosic process"? How exactly is it supposedly being manifested in
the specific phenomenon that is under examination? As the saying goes, the
devil is in the details.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 9:00 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> Then the question I ask is - what is the definition of THE Peircean
> analytic framework?
>
> That is, what if someone is examining the semiosic processes of a wetlands
> or a meadow, and examining the interactions among all the myriad species in
> these areas - using the three categories in both their genuine and
> degenerate modes, using the triadic semiosic process to show both necessary
> and adaptive interactions.would you say that this is only a
> 'Peircean-inspired-analytic framework.because Peirce himself never
> carried out such a use of his framework?
>
> Edwina
>
> On Sun 17/10/21 7:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not
> describe the person of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was referring
> to Marty's thoughts and analysis.
>
>
> Like I already said, I personally find such labels counterproductive and
> try to avoid them since they tend to distract participants from the substance
> of the discussion.
>
> ET: And that's one of the problems of this list - this definition of the
> thoughts of someone who is using the analytic framework of Peirce as
> somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate' with claims that Peirce 'didn't use those
> words' etc.
>
>
> It is not a matter of whether a given analytic framework is "somehow
> 'impure' or 'degenerate,'" but whether it is truly  Peirce's analytic
> framework. Terminology is important, but the issue is really whether concepts
> are being deployed in way that is congruent with how Peirce himself
> defines and uses them. If not, it might very well be a Peircean analytic
> framework, or at least a Peirce-inspired analytic framework, but it is
> not the Peircean analytic framework.
>
> ET: I'm claiming such a final step is impossible because semiosis has no
> final point.
>
>
> Yes and no. According to Peirce, every text is a sign. Consequently, every
> text has a final interpretant--how it necessarily would be understood
> under ideal circumstances. Every text also has an immediate
> interpretant--how it possibly could be understood in accordance with the
> definitions of the words that comprise it, along with their arrangement in
> accordance with the syntax and other rules of grammar for the system of
> signs in which it is expressed. The result of any individual reading of a
> text is a dynamical interpretant--how it  actually is understood on that
> particular occasion, which for any sincere inquirer is an
> abductive/retroductive hypothesis about the final interpretant as the
> proper aim of interpretation.
>
> In order to be a valid understanding of the text, this dynamical
> interpretant must be consistent with the immediate interpretant; and in
> order to be an accurate understanding of the text, it must conform to the
> final interpretant. Of course, all dynamical interpretants are fallible, so
> we can never be absolutely certain that our understanding matches the
> final interpretant. Nevertheless, we can ascertain when a particular
> understanding is inconsistent with the immediate interpretant, and is
> thus objectively invalid; and in such cases, we can also say with
> confidence that such an understanding does not conform to the final
> interpretant, and is thus objectively inaccurate--it is a misunderstanding,
> a misinterpretation.
>
> Surely we agree that such misunderstanding and misinterpretation are
> possible--in fact, all too common in human discourse. Peirce's semeiotic
> provides this plausible explanation for those phenomena. While it is true
> that "semiosis has no final point" in the sense of a last actual sign, it
> does have a "final point" in the sense of a telos or ideal aim as I have
> described here. Otherwise, why bother trying to communicate at all?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:24 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> JAS, list
>>
>> I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not describe
>> the person of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was referring to
>> Marty's thoughts and analysis. After all - if we 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct, intuition and semiosis

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

Then the question I ask is - what is the definition of THE Peircean
analytic framework?

That is, what if someone is examining the semiosic processes of a
wetlands or a meadow, and examining the interactions among all the
myriad species in these areas - using the three categories in both
their genuine and degenerate modes, using the triadic semiosic
process to show both necessary and adaptive interactions.would
you say that this is only a 'Peircean-inspired-analytic
framework.because Peirce himself never carried out such a use of
his framework?

Edwina
 On Sun 17/10/21  7:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not
describe the person of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was
referring to Marty's thoughts and analysis.
 Like I already said, I personally find such labels counterproductive
and try to avoid them since they tend to distract participants from
the  substance of the discussion.
 ET: And that's one of the problems of this list - this definition of
the thoughts of someone who is using the analytic framework of Peirce
as somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate' with claims that Peirce 'didn't
use those words' etc.
 It is not a matter of whether a given analytic framework is "somehow
'impure' or 'degenerate,'" but whether it is truly  Peirce's analytic
framework. Terminology is important, but the issue is really whether
concepts are being deployed in way that is congruent with how Peirce
himself defines and uses them. If not, it might very well be a
Peircean analytic framework, or at least a Peirce-inspired analytic
framework, but it is not the Peircean analytic framework.
 ET: I'm claiming such a final step is impossible because semiosis
has no final point. 
 Yes and no. According to Peirce, every text is a sign. Consequently,
every text has a final interpretant--how it necessarily would be
understood under ideal circumstances. Every text also has an
immediate interpretant--how it possibly could be understood in
accordance with the definitions of the words that comprise it, along
with their arrangement in accordance with the syntax and other rules
of grammar for the system of signs in which it is expressed. The
result of any individual reading of a text is a dynamical
interpretant--how it  actually is understood on that particular
occasion, which for any sincere inquirer is an abductive/retroductive
hypothesis about the final interpretant as the proper aim of
interpretation.
 In order to be a valid understanding of the text, this dynamical
interpretant must be consistent with the immediate interpretant; and
in order to be an accurate understanding of the text, it must conform
to the final interpretant. Of course, all dynamical interpretants are
fallible, so we can never be  absolutely certain that our
understanding matches the final interpretant. Nevertheless, we can
ascertain when a particular understanding is inconsistent with the
immediate interpretant, and is thus objectively invalid; and in such
cases, we can also say with confidence that such an understanding
does not conform to the final interpretant, and is thus objectively
inaccurate--it is a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation.
  Surely we agree that such misunderstanding and misinterpretation
are possible--in fact, all too common in human discourse. Peirce's
semeiotic provides this plausible explanation for those phenomena.
While it is true that "semiosis has no final point" in the sense of a
last actual sign, it does have a "final point" in the sense of a telos
or ideal aim as I have described here. Otherwise, why bother trying to
communicate at all? 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] 
 On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:24 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS, list

I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not
describe the person of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was
referring to Marty's thoughts and analysis. After all - if we were to
actually call a person a 'post-Peircean' - what exactly would we be
saying?? That he lives after 1914? The fact is - that the thoughts
and analysis were called 'post-Peircean'. 

And that's one of the problems of this list - this definition of the
thoughts of someone who is using the analytic framework of Peirce as
somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate' with claims that Peirce 'didn't use
those words' etc. After all - what does 'post-Peircean' actually
mean? Does it mean an incorrect reading of the text? I've repeatedly
said that we have to be VERY careful of our readings of texts -
because ALL readings are not dyadic mirrors of the text or author's
mind. Instead - they are our own interpretations - and we surely are
aware 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct, intuition and semiosis

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET: I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not
describe the *person *of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was referring
to Marty's thoughts and analysis.


Like I already said, I personally find such labels counterproductive and
try to avoid them since they tend to distract participants from the *substance
*of the discussion.

ET: And that's one of the problems of this list - this definition of the
thoughts of someone who is using the analytic framework of Peirce as
somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate' with claims that Peirce 'didn't use those
words' etc.


It is not a matter of whether a given analytic framework is "somehow
'impure' or 'degenerate,'" but whether it is truly *Peirce's *analytic
framework. Terminology is important, but the issue is really whether *concepts
*are being deployed in way that is congruent with how *Peirce himself*
defines and uses them. If not, it might very well be *a* Peircean analytic
framework, or at least a *Peirce-inspired* analytic framework, but it is
not *the *Peircean analytic framework.

ET: I'm claiming such a final step is impossible because semiosis has no
final point.


Yes and no. According to Peirce, every text is a sign. Consequently, every
text has a final interpretant--how it *necessarily would* *be *understood
under ideal circumstances. Every text also has an immediate
interpretant--how it *possibly could* *be *understood in accordance with
the definitions of the words that comprise it, along with their arrangement
in accordance with the syntax and other rules of grammar for the system of
signs in which it is expressed. The result of any individual reading of a
text is a dynamical interpretant--how it *actually is *understood on that
particular occasion, which for any sincere inquirer is an
abductive/retroductive hypothesis about the final interpretant as the
proper *aim *of interpretation.

In order to be a *valid *understanding of the text, this dynamical
interpretant must be consistent with the immediate interpretant; and in
order to be an *accurate *understanding of the text, it must conform to the
final interpretant. Of course, all dynamical interpretants are fallible, so
we can never be *absolutely certain* that our understanding matches the
final interpretant. Nevertheless, we *can *ascertain when a particular
understanding is *inconsistent *with the immediate interpretant, and is
thus *objectively* invalid; and in such cases, we can also say with
confidence that such an understanding *does not* conform to the final
interpretant, and is thus *objectively *inaccurate--it is a *mis*understanding,
a *mis*interpretation.

Surely we agree that such misunderstanding and misinterpretation are
possible--in fact, all too common in human discourse. Peirce's semeiotic
provides this plausible explanation for those phenomena. While it is true
that "semiosis has no final point" in the sense of a last *actual *sign, it
does have a "final point" in the sense of a *telos *or ideal aim as I have
described here. Otherwise, why bother trying to communicate at all?

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:24 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not describe
> the person of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was referring to
> Marty's thoughts and analysis. After all - if we were to actually call a
> person a 'post-Peircean' - what exactly would we be saying?? That he
> lives after 1914? The fact is - that the thoughts and analysis were called
> 'post-Peircean'.
>
> And that's one of the problems of this list - this definition of the
> thoughts of someone who is using the analytic framework of Peirce as
> somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate' with claims that Peirce 'didn't use those
> words' etc. After all - what does 'post-Peircean' actually mean? Does it
> mean an incorrect reading of the text? I've repeatedly said that we have to
> be VERY careful of our readings of texts - because ALL readings are not
> dyadic mirrors of the text or author's mind. Instead - they are our own
> interpretations - and we surely are aware of how varied such readings of
> the SAME texts can be. We cannot yet, if ever declare that one particular
> interpretation is The Final and Correct One.
>
> Therefore - I would also be against your suggestion that we should not
> move into applying Peirce's analytic framework to other fields - before we
> have declared what his work 'actually is'. I'm claiming such a final step
> is impossible because semiosis has no final point.
>
> Edwina
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct, intuition and semiosis

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Gary F., Robert, List:

GF: I happen to think that Peirce’s philosophy, especially his
phenomenology and the semiotics which is quite explicitly based on it, is
highly relevant to the challenges of living in our time — relevant just as
it is, in the writings that Peirce left us. ... I think Peirce’s ideas,
just as he expressed them, can and should be integrated with matters of
living concern. I think they are “directly applicable to the conduct of
life, and full of nutrition for man's highest growth,” as Peirce said of
his “neglected argument” (EP2:435).


I strongly agree, which is why I believe that it is vitally important to
establish carefully what *Peirce's *philosophy and ideas actually were, as
expressed in his voluminous writings, *before *attempting to apply them to
today's challenges in a variety of fields. Otherwise, what we are
implementing is not "the Peircean framework" at all, but one of our own
creation, even if it is *inspired *by his.

RM: Finally everything becomes clearer and I understand better why Gary F
sees me as a Post-Peircean ...


Gary F. has never described any *person *as a post-Peircean. Here is what
he *actually *wrote a few months ago, during the slow read of André De
Tienne's slide presentation about phaneroscopy.

GF (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-07/msg00037.html): I
should point out (to avoid further confusion) that Robert’s brand of
category theory is a post-Peircean development and does not adhere strictly
to Peirce’s phaneroscopic terminology. Peirce never refers to phanerons as
“elements,” or to elements as “phanerons.” He refers to the universal
categories as “elements of the phaneron,” or “elements of experience,” or
“elements of consciousness”; he even refers to “categories of phanerons”
once, in CP 1.286 (below); but not to phanerons as “elements.” (Use of that
term in phaneroscopy comes from an analogy with chemistry, as we’ll see
later.)
Also, we’ve seen in Robert’s previous posts that he regards the categories
as produced by deduction from mathematical principles, while Peirce says
they are generalized from observation of the phaneron (“inductively,” as
André put it in an earlier slide). Peirce’s phaneroscopy is a positive
science, not a purely hypothetical one like mathematics. (The positivity of
phaneroscopy will be examined in later slides of this slow read.)


It is Robert's peculiar theory of the categories that Gary F. calls "a
post-Peircean development" because it "does not adhere strictly to Peirce's
phaneroscopic terminology" and "regards the categories as produced by
deduction from mathematical principles" rather than "generalized from
observation of the phaneron." Personally, I find such labels
counterproductive and try to avoid them since they tend to distract
participants from the *substance *of the discussion. Robert might even
be *correct
*that the categories are properly identified by mathematical deduction
rather than phaneroscopic observation, but that is not what we find *Peirce
*stating in his texts on the subject.

RM: ... it is because he is basically himself an Ante-Peircean who reduces
Peirce to an Idioscopy as it could exist before him, without Cenoscopy and
of course without Mathematics.


I honestly cannot make any sense of this assertion. How could Gary F. be an
"ante-Peircean" when his concern is with interpreting and applying
'Peirce's ideas, just as he expressed them"? What would it mean to "reduce
Peirce to an Idioscopy" when we are discussing "especially his
phenomenology and the semiotics which is quite explicitly based on it,"
both of which fall within cenoscopy and depend for principles on
mathematics? Again, such labels and rhetoric do not foster a productive and
edifying discussion.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM robert marty 
wrote:

> List,
> Finally everything becomes clearer and I understand better why Gary F sees
> me as a Post-Peircean ... it is because he is basically himself an
> Ante-Peircean who reduces Peirce to an Idioscopy as it could exist before
> him, without Cenoscopy and of course without Mathematics . ... as I simply
> claim to be Peircean, without any truncation, he sees me as Post ... and I
> see him as Ante ... however, he is in a position of advantage over
> Peirce-L; consequently, if a justification of a parallel list was needed,
> here it is ...
> RM
> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
> Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 16:24,  a écrit :
>
>> Jack, I appreciate your point that “we cannot have an epistemology
>> without some form of "anthropology".” If I may extend the idea a little, we
>> cannot hope to understand human nature, or why humans think and act the way
>> we do, unless we 

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Classifications of the Sciences (was Should we start a new email list)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, List:

Notice Peirce's significant shift in thinking already *within *R 1345.
Empirics and pragmatics have disappeared, with philosophy now coming right
after mathematics, and ethics as "the philosophy of action" falling within
it--inserted between "the philosophical trivium"("speculative grammar,
logic, and speculative rhetoric"; EP 2:19, 1895) as "the philosophy of
thought" and metaphysics as "the philosophy of being."

RM: Do we have the right to develop new hypotheses and to study them in
open and respectful dialogue?


Absolutely, as long as we acknowledge them to be *new *hypotheses rather
than ascribing them to *Peirce*. We also need to recognize the
evolution of *his
own* thought over time, such that mathematics/empirics/pragmatics was a
temporary (even fleeting) stage in his efforts to develop a classification
of the sciences--one with which he was ultimately dissatisfied. Again, that
is not to say that his mature classification is *correct*, or even that it
is *more *correct than his earlier ones; just that his own assessment of
what he wrote down in R 1345 was such that he wrote down something very
different several years later.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:28 AM robert marty 
wrote:

> Dear Jack,
> Your point is now anthropological and I do not reject it ... my
> preoccupation is strictly epistemological (remember that we are here in the
> Sciences of Discovery): what are the practical consequences of this
> identification of forms for knowledge? Here is another version of the
> classification of sciences in the same MS 1345 :
>
> "Synopsis of Logic
>
> *Chapter I . The Place of Philosophy among The Sciences.*
>
> Art. 1. Division 1. The *Sciences *are divided *according to the distance
> at which they paint nature into**: *
>
> 1.Mathematics.
> 2. Philosophy.
> 3. Nomology: general physics and general physics;
> 4. Natural History, the descriptions of classes;
> 5. Sciences descriptive of individual objects, geography, astronomy,
> ordinary history, etc.
> *Definition 1. Mathematics is the development of hypotheses.*
> *Definition* 2. *Philosophy* is the science which deals with the general
> phenomena of life.
>
> Art 2.* Division* 2. *Philosophy* is divided into
>
> 1. The philosophy of thought: The *Philosophical* *Trivium*
> 2. The philosophy of action: *Ethics*, etc.
> 1. The philosophy of being: *Metaphysics.  "*  [emphasize mine]
>
> What do we do with this? Do we have the right to develop new hypotheses
> and to study them in open and respectful dialogue? Knowing that a bricoleur
> will be able to repair his electrical network but that for a nuclear power
> plant, one will rather call upon a specialist of Dynamics of Fluids ...
> When Newton saw an apple fall and encapsulated this apple in a binary
> relation of attraction with the earth, he opened the possibility for
> humanity to take a big step on the Moon...
>
> Here are the questions ...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert Marty
> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Theme One Program • Motivation 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/05/17/theme-one-program-motivation-2/

All,

A side-effect of working on the Theme One program over the course
of a decade was the measure of insight it gave me into the reasons
why empiricists and rationalists have so much trouble understanding
each other, even when those two styles of thinking inhabit the very
same soul.

The way it came about was this.  The code from which the program is
currently assembled initially came from two distinct programs, ones
I developed in alternate years, at first only during the summers.

In the Learner program I sought to implement a Humean empiricist style of
learning algorithm for the adaptive uptake of coded sequences of occurrences
in the environment, say, as codified in a formal language.  I knew all the
theorems from formal language theory telling how limited any such strategy
must ultimately be in terms of its generative capacity, but I wanted to
explore the boundaries of that capacity in concrete computational terms.

In the Modeler program I aimed to implement a variant of Peirce’s graphical
syntax for propositional logic, making use of graph-theoretic extensions
I had developed over the previous decade.

As I mentioned, work on those two projects proceeded in a parallel series of
fits and starts through interwoven summers for a number of years, until one day
it dawned on me how the Learner, one of whose aliases was “Index”, could be put
to work helping with sundry substitution tasks the Modeler needed to carry out.

So I began integrating the functions of the Learner and the Modeler, at first
still working on the two component modules in an alternating manner, but 
devoting
a portion of effort to amalgamating their principal data structures, bringing 
them
into convergence with each other, and unifying them over a common basis.

Another round of seasons and many changes of mind and programming style,
I arrived at a unified graph-theoretic data structure, strung like a wire
through the far‑flung pearls of my programmed wit.  But the pearls I polished
in alternate years maintained their shine along axes of polarization whose 
grains
remained skew in regard to each other.  To put it more plainly, the strategies
I imagined were the smartest tricks to pull from the standpoint of optimizing
the program’s performance on the Learning task I found the next year were the
dumbest moves to pull from the standpoint of its performance on the Reasoning
task.  I gradually came to appreciate that trade-off as a discovery ...

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] Instinct, intuition and semiosis

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear robert, list,


You said,

however, he (Gary F) is in a position of advantage over Peirce-L


What are you talking about?

The history of this list is detailed on the Arisbe site and

Gary R also gave his version as recently as the other day:


I am in the process of exploring the future direction of Peirce-L with
Nathan Houser, who heads The Peirce Group (TPG), and Peter Skagestaad, a
member of TPG who was charged with overseeing the functioning of Peirce-L
when over a decade ago I was appointed moderator of the List in accordance
with Joseph Ransdell's express wishes. I suggested that Ben Udell, who
immediately agreed to take on the duties of webmaster (which Joe had also
requested), also serve as co-manager with me of Peirce-L and Arisbe; he is
also now involved in these discussions.


Don’t give up power you think you don’t have,

especially to others who don’t claim to have it.


And if you think what you just said is justification for a new list,

then it follows that you don’t have that justification.


Besides, signing up for another list-

that’s not something everyone on this list will do.

So, starting up another list has constraints of its own,

where one possibility is that you end up just talking amongst yourselves.


I would recommend listening to Margarithe’s smart advice,

which is to fix what we have here, more or less.


I believe Peirce offered a method to get us out of this type of situation.

Do you not see it?


With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM robert marty 
wrote:

> List,
> Finally everything becomes clearer and I understand better why Gary F sees
> me as a Post-Peircean ... it is because he is basically himself an
> Ante-Peircean who reduces Peirce to an Idioscopy as it could exist before
> him, without Cenoscopy and of course without Mathematics . ... as I simply
> claim to be Peircean, without any truncation, he sees me as Post ... and I
> see him as Ante ... however, he is in a position of advantage over
> Peirce-L; consequently, if a justification of a parallel list was needed,
> here it is ...
> RM
> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
>
>
> Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 16:24,  a écrit :
>
>> Jack, I appreciate your point that “we cannot have an epistemology
>> without some form of "anthropology".” If I may extend the idea a little, we
>> cannot hope to understand human nature, or why humans think and act the way
>> we do, unless we can draw on insights emerging from biology, anthropology,
>> sociology, psychology, phenomenology, semiotics, and the whole range of
>> empirical sciences (“Idioscopy” was Peirce’s term). But the fact that all
>> these disciplines have been hived off into academic special interests makes
>> it difficult to integrate them all into a coherent system.
>>
>> I happen to think that Peirce’s philosophy, especially his phenomenology
>> and the semiotics which is quite explicitly based on it, is highly relevant
>> to the challenges of living in our time — relevant *just as it is,* in
>> the writings that Peirce left us. That’s why I included so much of it in my
>> online book *Turning Signs . *My purpose
>> there was to *integrate *it with more recent insights from the
>> disciplines mentioned above, along with selections from ancient scriptures
>> and Indigenous traditions. Jeremy Lent’s new book *The Web of Meaning*
>> does much the same thing, and very well (I think), but leaves out the
>> semiotics. So I think my book may have some added value, although Lent’s
>> may be more accessible.
>>
>> I do *not* believe that studies of Peirce are relevant *only* when we
>> can link them up somehow with current developments in our own specialized
>> field (such as “Cognitive Science,” using John Sowa’s example). I think
>> Peirce’s ideas, just as he expressed them, can and should be integrated
>> with matters of living concern. I think they are “directly applicable to
>> the conduct of life, and full of nutrition for man's highest growth,” as
>> Peirce said of his “neglected argument” (EP2:435). The center of my own
>> concern these days (as readers of my blog 
>> know) is the current global situation in which human activity is rapidly
>> undermining our life support system. Since there is wide consensus on what
>> needs to be done *in this decade* to have a chance of stabilizing our
>> life support system, I am especially interested in what it is about human
>> nature that has brought us to this pass and seems to be preventing us from
>> doing what needs to be done. But I do *not* consider this to be a
>> ‘special interest’; I think it is of *general* concern for all life
>> forms on this planet.
>>
>> I have several reasons for thinking that Peirce’s work is highly relevant
>> to this *general* concern. One is his emphasis on the *continuity* of
>> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct, intuition and semiosis

[robert marty]

List,
Finally everything becomes clearer and I understand better why Gary F sees
me as a Post-Peircean ... it is because he is basically himself an
Ante-Peircean who reduces Peirce to an Idioscopy as it could exist before
him, without Cenoscopy and of course without Mathematics . ... as I simply
claim to be Peircean, without any truncation, he sees me as Post ... and I
see him as Ante ... however, he is in a position of advantage over
Peirce-L; consequently, if a justification of a parallel list was needed,
here it is ...
RM
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 16:24,  a écrit :

> Jack, I appreciate your point that “we cannot have an epistemology without
> some form of "anthropology".” If I may extend the idea a little, we cannot
> hope to understand human nature, or why humans think and act the way we do,
> unless we can draw on insights emerging from biology, anthropology,
> sociology, psychology, phenomenology, semiotics, and the whole range of
> empirical sciences (“Idioscopy” was Peirce’s term). But the fact that all
> these disciplines have been hived off into academic special interests makes
> it difficult to integrate them all into a coherent system.
>
> I happen to think that Peirce’s philosophy, especially his phenomenology
> and the semiotics which is quite explicitly based on it, is highly relevant
> to the challenges of living in our time — relevant *just as it is,* in
> the writings that Peirce left us. That’s why I included so much of it in my
> online book *Turning Signs . *My purpose there
> was to *integrate *it with more recent insights from the disciplines
> mentioned above, along with selections from ancient scriptures and
> Indigenous traditions. Jeremy Lent’s new book *The Web of Meaning* does
> much the same thing, and very well (I think), but leaves out the semiotics.
> So I think my book may have some added value, although Lent’s may be more
> accessible.
>
> I do *not* believe that studies of Peirce are relevant *only* when we can
> link them up somehow with current developments in our own specialized field
> (such as “Cognitive Science,” using John Sowa’s example). I think Peirce’s
> ideas, just as he expressed them, can and should be integrated with matters
> of living concern. I think they are “directly applicable to the conduct of
> life, and full of nutrition for man's highest growth,” as Peirce said of
> his “neglected argument” (EP2:435). The center of my own concern these days
> (as readers of my blog  know) is the current
> global situation in which human activity is rapidly undermining our life
> support system. Since there is wide consensus on what needs to be done *in
> this decade* to have a chance of stabilizing our life support system, I
> am especially interested in what it is about human nature that has brought
> us to this pass and seems to be preventing us from doing what needs to be
> done. But I do *not* consider this to be a ‘special interest’; I think it
> is of *general* concern for all life forms on this planet.
>
> I have several reasons for thinking that Peirce’s work is highly relevant
> to this *general* concern. One is his emphasis on the *continuity* of
> semiosis; and closely connected with this is his *psychological* insight
> that human conscious reasoning is only the tip of the vast iceberg of
> semiosis (sorry about the hackneyed metaphor). I think recent developments
> in social psychology have borne out this insight — for instance, those
> summarized at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intuitionism. I’d be
> happy to explore this further on peirce-l if there is interest (and not too
> many objections).
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  *On
> Behalf Of *JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
> *Sent:* 17-Oct-21 07:30
> *To:* robert marty 
> *Cc:* Margaretha Hendrickx ; tabor...@primus.ca;
> Peirce-L ; Gary Fuhrman 
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: Should we start a new email list
> (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c
>
>
>
> Dear Robert,
>
>
>
> My point is definitely anthropological, but we cannot have an epistemology
> without some form of "anthropology" (Comte was a sociological philosopher
> after all). I don't know how to answer your questions, though you do raise
> some interesting points. If mathematics is defined as "the development of
> hypotheses", it would seem all other branches logically depend upon
> mathematics. On the other hand, how do we develop hypotheses if not via
> experience of and in the world of actuality and being? The relationship
> between empirics and mathematics seems more dialectical rather than
> strictly hierarchical to me, though from a purely (natural) "scientific"
> point of view, I can understand why such a hierarchy is both accepted and
> important. It becomes less easy to 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[Bernard Morand]

Le 17/10/2021 à 16:11, Robert Marty a écrit :

Cher Bernard, vous écrivez :
"I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be 
cleared up independently of the question of classification of sciences.
On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an 
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic 
of the categories."
then my question is: does this "a priori trichotomy derived from the 
logic of the categories" fall from the sky or rather from the 
mathematical repository with 1- the triadic reduction theorem of the 
relational structures; 2- a Poset 3-->2-->1 which is the form of the 
phaneroscopic categories incorporating their interdependence 
relationship; all in the well of the truth?

Bien cordialement,
RM


Thanks Robert,

You know that I think that the logic of the categories takes it reality 
into the very mathematical organization that defines it. So my answers 
to your question 1 and 2 are YES for both.


Yet I wrote the phrase you are quoting a little bit quickly.

I wanted to underline that to force the description of Phaneroscopy to 
obey a preconceived (and hypothetical) classification of sciences is 
taking the problem the wrong way round (like the discussion on the list 
seems to have shown)


To have ready at hand a formal structure is one thing but using it in 
situation is another one. If a metaphor is allowed here, having at 
disposal a skeleton is necessary but to transform it into Frankenstein 
is a challenge.


I always feel uneasy with the word "applied" even if it is used to 
qualify "semiotics" itself.


Amitiés

Bernard

Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 12:03, Bernard Morand > a écrit :


John, List,

Le 16/10/2021 à 23:58, sowa @bestweb.net  a
écrit :


I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by
three people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce
topics for which they have no canned answer.  An example is my
note about phaneroscopy as a science egg.  ADT had no explanation
for Peirce's remark.  Somebody mentioned the attempt by Atkins to
broaden phaneroscopy..  But that attempt blurred the line between
phaneroscopy and normative science.  When I observed that the
combination of phaneroscopy and normative science would be
equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer. /*These are very
important questions that need to be asked.*/ I am not
complaining.  I am asking a question that gets to the heart of
Peirce's 1903 classification. (my emphasis)



I strongly agree with this statement from John.

I was surprised at first reading by the mixing of two topics in
the discussion about the ADT slides, a mix which he himself
posited in his presentation and which seemed to me as being
unnecessary.

I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be
cleared up independently of the question of classification of
sciences.

On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the
logic of the categories.

This is too much putting the cart before the horse.

Furthermore I wonder whether the Peirce's aim after 1903 was not
to compare the logical reality of the categories with the
observable facts of living signs, hence his strong interest for
his correspondence with Lady Welby.

If this was the case, something we would call today experimental
method, then the observation of living signs (phanerons) needs to
be conducted out of the categories schema and not vice versa.

So the matter of classification of phaneroscopy would have to come
after.

Coming back to the reading of ADT slides, what have we learned
from it on the List ? None of the initiators of the topic has
offered any insight into concluding remarks (at least as it
appears to me).

Regards

Bernard

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 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 

[PEIRCE-L] Instinct, intuition and semiosis

[gnox]

Jack, I appreciate your point that “we cannot have an epistemology without some 
form of "anthropology".” If I may extend the idea a little, we cannot hope to 
understand human nature, or why humans think and act the way we do, unless we 
can draw on insights emerging from biology, anthropology, sociology, 
psychology, phenomenology, semiotics, and the whole range of empirical sciences 
(“Idioscopy” was Peirce’s term). But the fact that all these disciplines have 
been hived off into academic special interests makes it difficult to integrate 
them all into a coherent system.

I happen to think that Peirce’s philosophy, especially his phenomenology and 
the semiotics which is quite explicitly based on it, is highly relevant to the 
challenges of living in our time — relevant just as it is, in the writings that 
Peirce left us. That’s why I included so much of it in my online book Turning 
Signs  . My purpose there was to integrate it with 
more recent insights from the disciplines mentioned above, along with 
selections from ancient scriptures and Indigenous traditions. Jeremy Lent’s new 
book The Web of Meaning does much the same thing, and very well (I think), but 
leaves out the semiotics. So I think my book may have some added value, 
although Lent’s may be more accessible.

I do not believe that studies of Peirce are relevant only when we can link them 
up somehow with current developments in our own specialized field (such as 
“Cognitive Science,” using John Sowa’s example). I think Peirce’s ideas, just 
as he expressed them, can and should be integrated with matters of living 
concern. I think they are “directly applicable to the conduct of life, and full 
of nutrition for man's highest growth,” as Peirce said of his “neglected 
argument” (EP2:435). The center of my own concern these days (as readers of my 
blog   know) is the current global situation in 
which human activity is rapidly undermining our life support system. Since 
there is wide consensus on what needs to be done in this decade to have a 
chance of stabilizing our life support system, I am especially interested in 
what it is about human nature that has brought us to this pass and seems to be 
preventing us from doing what needs to be done. But I do not consider this to 
be a ‘special interest’; I think it is of general concern for all life forms on 
this planet.

I have several reasons for thinking that Peirce’s work is highly relevant to 
this general concern. One is his emphasis on the continuity of semiosis; and 
closely connected with this is his psychological insight that human conscious 
reasoning is only the tip of the vast iceberg of semiosis (sorry about the 
hackneyed metaphor). I think recent developments in social psychology have 
borne out this insight — for instance, those summarized at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intuitionism. I’d be happy to explore this 
further on peirce-l if there is interest (and not too many objections). 

Gary f.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
Sent: 17-Oct-21 07:30
To: robert marty 
Cc: Margaretha Hendrickx ; tabor...@primus.ca; Peirce-L 
; Gary Fuhrman 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: Should we start a new email list (was 
Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

 

Dear Robert, 

 

My point is definitely anthropological, but we cannot have an epistemology 
without some form of "anthropology" (Comte was a sociological philosopher after 
all). I don't know how to answer your questions, though you do raise some 
interesting points. If mathematics is defined as "the development of 
hypotheses", it would seem all other branches logically depend upon 
mathematics. On the other hand, how do we develop hypotheses if not via 
experience of and in the world of actuality and being? The relationship between 
empirics and mathematics seems more dialectical rather than strictly 
hierarchical to me, though from a purely (natural) "scientific" point of view, 
I can understand why such a hierarchy is both accepted and important. It 
becomes less easy to accept and defend when we move into the world of human 
action and interaction and so your comment re the sociological axis is indeed 
apt. 

 

Best

 

Jack

 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] Should we start a new email list?

[Robert Marty]

Cher Bernard, vous écrivez :
"I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be cleared
up independently of the question of classification of sciences.
On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an unknown
thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic of the
categories."
then my question is: does this "a priori trichotomy derived from the logic
of the categories" fall from the sky or rather from the mathematical
repository with 1- the triadic reduction theorem of the relational
structures; 2- a Poset 3-->2-->1 which is the form of the phaneroscopic
categories incorporating their interdependence relationship; all in the
well of the truth?
Bien cordialement,
RM
Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 12:03, Bernard Morand  a
écrit :

> John, List,
> Le 16/10/2021 à 23:58, sowa @bestweb.net a écrit :
>
> I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three
> people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for
> which they have no canned answer.  An example is my note about phaneroscopy
> as a science egg.  ADT had no explanation for Peirce's remark.  Somebody
> mentioned the attempt by Atkins to broaden phaneroscopy..  But that attempt
> blurred the line between phaneroscopy and normative science.  When I
> observed that the combination of phaneroscopy and normative science would
> be equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer.  *These are very
> important questions that need to be asked.*  I am not complaining.  I am
> asking a question that gets to the heart of Peirce's 1903 classification.
> (my emphasis)
>
> I strongly agree with this statement from John.
>
> I was surprised at first reading by the mixing of two topics in the
> discussion about the ADT slides, a mix which he himself posited in his
> presentation and which seemed to me as being unnecessary.
>
> I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be cleared
> up independently of the question of classification of sciences.
>
> On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an unknown
> thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic of the
> categories.
>
> This is too much putting the cart before the horse.
>
> Furthermore I wonder whether the Peirce's aim after 1903 was not to
> compare the logical reality of the categories with the observable facts of
> living signs, hence his strong interest for his correspondence with Lady
> Welby.
>
> If this was the case, something we would call today experimental method,
> then the observation of living signs (phanerons) needs to be conducted out
> of the categories schema and not vice versa.
>
> So the matter of classification of phaneroscopy would have to come after.
>
> Coming back to the reading of ADT slides, what have we learned from it on
> the List ? None of the initiators of the topic has offered any insight into
> concluding remarks (at least as it appears to me).
>
> Regards
>
> Bernard
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Robert Marty]

Dear Jack,
The hierarchy is in your mind, not in mine because the identification of
forms does not imply a hierarchy of forms... consider mathematics as a
repository of forms some of which can be embodied in empirics... for
example a Poset (partially ordered set) can be embodied in a phaneron
becoming a trichotomy tertian -->secundan-->priman i.e. a set or three
categorized elements WITH their interdependence relationship ... And we can
continue with other forms ... do you know the collaboration of Claude
Lévi-Strauss with the mathematician André Weil about the kinship system of
the Murngins ?
Best regards ...
Robert Marty

Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 13:29, JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <
jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie> a écrit :

> Dear Robert,
>
> My point is definitely anthropological, but we cannot have an epistemology
> without some form of "anthropology" (Comte was a sociological philosopher
> after all). I don't know how to answer your questions, though you do raise
> some interesting points. If mathematics is defined as "the development of
> hypotheses", it would seem all other branches logically depend upon
> mathematics. On the other hand, how do we develop hypotheses if not via
> experience of and in the world of actuality and being? The relationship
> between empirics and mathematics seems more dialectical rather than
> strictly hierarchical to me, though from a purely (natural) "scientific"
> point of view, I can understand why such a hierarchy is both accepted and
> important. It becomes less easy to accept and defend when we move into the
> world of human action and interaction and so your comment re the
> sociological axis is indeed apt.
>
> Best
>
> Jack
>
> --
> *From:* robert marty 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 17, 2021 11:27 AM
> *To:* JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY 
> *Cc:* Margaretha Hendrickx ; tabor...@primus.ca <
> tabor...@primus.ca>; Peirce-L ; Gary Fuhrman <
> g...@gnusystems.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list
> (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c
>
> Dear Jack,
> Your point is now anthropological and I do not reject it ... my
> preoccupation is strictly epistemological (remember that we are here in the
> Sciences of Discovery): what are the practical consequences of this
> identification of forms for knowledge? Here is another version of the
> classification of sciences in the same MS 1345 :
>
> "Synopsis of Logic
>
> *Chapter I . The Place of Philosophy among The Sciences.*
>
> Art. 1. Division 1. The *Sciences *are divided *according to the distance
> at which they paint nature into**: *
>
> 1.Mathematics.
> 2. Philosophy.
> 3. Nomology: general physics and general physics;
> 4. Natural History, the descriptions of classes;
> 5. Sciences descriptive of individual objects, geography, astronomy,
> ordinary history, etc.
> *Definition 1. Mathematics is the development of hypotheses.*
> *Definition* 2. *Philosophy* is the science which deals with the general
> phenomena of life.
>
> Art 2.* Division* 2. *Philosophy* is divided into
>
> 1. The philosophy of thought: The *Philosophical* *Trivium*
> 2. The philosophy of action: *Ethics*, etc.
> 1. The philosophy of being: *Metaphysics.  "*  [emphasize mine]
>
> What do we do with this? Do we have the right to develop new hypotheses
> and to study them in open and respectful dialogue? Knowing that a bricoleur
> will be able to repair his electrical network but that for a nuclear power
> plant, one will rather call upon a specialist of Dynamics of Fluids ...
> When Newton saw an apple fall and encapsulated this apple in a binary
> relation of attraction with the earth, he opened the possibility for
> humanity to take a big step on the Moon...
>
> Here are the questions ...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert Marty
> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
>
>
> Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 11:16, JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <
> jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie> a écrit :
>
> Robert, List,
>
> I think that Peirce's classification, quoted in your post below, is
> absolutely accurate (and I'm firmly within the sociological axis). I would
> say, though, that just as Peirce considered people to be practicing
> phaneroscopy (artists and so on) even when they were unaware of it, it is
> also highly possible (or in fact, probable) that people practice
> mathematics in all walks life without ever referring to it (to themselves)
> as mathematics. The vast majority of theory which deals with abstract forms
> (without reference to "real" conditions of existence) is mathematical (in
> the sense Peirce ascribes to it). And so, I think the problem is one of
> personal positioning and self-understanding rather than practice itself -
> which, in agreement with Peirce, I think we all do more or less in common
> form.
>
> Best
>
> Jack
>
> --
> *From:* 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Theme One Program • Motivation 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/05/15/theme-one-program-motivation-1/

All,

The main idea behind the Theme One program is the efficient use
of graph-theoretic data structures for the tasks of “learning”
and “reasoning”.

I am thinking of learning in the sense of learning about an environment,
in essence, gaining information about the nature of an environment and
being able to apply the information acquired to a specific purpose.

Under the heading of reasoning I am simply lumping together all the
ordinary sorts of practical activities which would probably occur
to most people under that name.

There is a natural relation between the tasks.  Learning the character
of an environment leads to the recognition of laws which govern the
environment and making full use of that recognition requires the
ability to reason logically about those laws in abstract terms.

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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY]

Dear Robert,

My point is definitely anthropological, but we cannot have an epistemology 
without some form of "anthropology" (Comte was a sociological philosopher after 
all). I don't know how to answer your questions, though you do raise some 
interesting points. If mathematics is defined as "the development of 
hypotheses", it would seem all other branches logically depend upon 
mathematics. On the other hand, how do we develop hypotheses if not via 
experience of and in the world of actuality and being? The relationship between 
empirics and mathematics seems more dialectical rather than strictly 
hierarchical to me, though from a purely (natural) "scientific" point of view, 
I can understand why such a hierarchy is both accepted and important. It 
becomes less easy to accept and defend when we move into the world of human 
action and interaction and so your comment re the sociological axis is indeed 
apt.

Best

Jack


From: robert marty 
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 11:27 AM
To: JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY 
Cc: Margaretha Hendrickx ; tabor...@primus.ca 
; Peirce-L ; Gary Fuhrman 

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was 
Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

Dear Jack,
Your point is now anthropological and I do not reject it ... my preoccupation 
is strictly epistemological (remember that we are here in the Sciences of 
Discovery): what are the practical consequences of this identification of forms 
for knowledge? Here is another version of the classification of sciences in the 
same MS 1345 :

"Synopsis of Logic

Chapter I . The Place of Philosophy among The Sciences.

Art. 1. Division 1. The Sciences are divided according to the distance at which 
they paint nature into:

1.Mathematics.
2. Philosophy.
3. Nomology: general physics and general physics;
4. Natural History, the descriptions of classes;
5. Sciences descriptive of individual objects, geography, astronomy, ordinary 
history, etc.
Definition 1. Mathematics is the development of hypotheses.
Definition 2. Philosophy is the science which deals with the general phenomena 
of life.

Art 2. Division 2. Philosophy is divided into

1. The philosophy of thought: The Philosophical Trivium
2. The philosophy of action: Ethics, etc.
1. The philosophy of being: Metaphysics.  "  [emphasize mine]

What do we do with this? Do we have the right to develop new hypotheses and to 
study them in open and respectful dialogue? Knowing that a bricoleur will be 
able to repair his electrical network but that for a nuclear power plant, one 
will rather call upon a specialist of Dynamics of Fluids ... When Newton saw an 
apple fall and encapsulated this apple in a binary relation of attraction with 
the earth, he opened the possibility for humanity to take a big step on the 
Moon...

Here are the questions ...

Best regards,

Robert Marty

Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/



Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 11:16, JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY 
mailto:jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie>> a écrit :
Robert, List,

I think that Peirce's classification, quoted in your post below, is absolutely 
accurate (and I'm firmly within the sociological axis). I would say, though, 
that just as Peirce considered people to be practicing phaneroscopy (artists 
and so on) even when they were unaware of it, it is also highly possible (or in 
fact, probable) that people practice mathematics in all walks life without ever 
referring to it (to themselves) as mathematics. The vast majority of theory 
which deals with abstract forms (without reference to "real" conditions of 
existence) is mathematical (in the sense Peirce ascribes to it). And so, I 
think the problem is one of personal positioning and self-understanding rather 
than practice itself - which, in agreement with Peirce, I think we all do more 
or less in common form.

Best

Jack


From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 
mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>> on 
behalf of robert marty 
mailto:robert.mart...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 8:59 AM
To: Margaretha Hendrickx mailto:mahe3...@gmail.com>>
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca 
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>>; Peirce-L 
mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>; Gary Fuhrman 
mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was 
Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

*Warning*

This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not 
reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know 
the content is safe.

Dear Margaretha,

Your conception of attitude is in interpersonal relations, very psychological. 
But it is not about that... it is about epistemology ... Here is for example a 
very vertical "epistemological 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[robert marty]

Dear Jack,
Your point is now anthropological and I do not reject it ... my
preoccupation is strictly epistemological (remember that we are here in the
Sciences of Discovery): what are the practical consequences of this
identification of forms for knowledge? Here is another version of the
classification of sciences in the same MS 1345 :

"Synopsis of Logic

*Chapter I . The Place of Philosophy among The Sciences.*

Art. 1. Division 1. The *Sciences *are divided *according to the distance
at which they paint nature into**: *

1.Mathematics.
2. Philosophy.
3. Nomology: general physics and general physics;
4. Natural History, the descriptions of classes;
5. Sciences descriptive of individual objects, geography, astronomy,
ordinary history, etc.
*Definition 1. Mathematics is the development of hypotheses.*
*Definition* 2. *Philosophy* is the science which deals with the general
phenomena of life.

Art 2.* Division* 2. *Philosophy* is divided into

1. The philosophy of thought: The *Philosophical* *Trivium*
2. The philosophy of action: *Ethics*, etc.
1. The philosophy of being: *Metaphysics.  "*  [emphasize mine]

What do we do with this? Do we have the right to develop new hypotheses and
to study them in open and respectful dialogue? Knowing that a bricoleur
will be able to repair his electrical network but that for a nuclear power
plant, one will rather call upon a specialist of Dynamics of Fluids ...
When Newton saw an apple fall and encapsulated this apple in a binary
relation of attraction with the earth, he opened the possibility for
humanity to take a big step on the Moon...

Here are the questions ...

Best regards,

Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 11:16, JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <
jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie> a écrit :

> Robert, List,
>
> I think that Peirce's classification, quoted in your post below, is
> absolutely accurate (and I'm firmly within the sociological axis). I would
> say, though, that just as Peirce considered people to be practicing
> phaneroscopy (artists and so on) even when they were unaware of it, it is
> also highly possible (or in fact, probable) that people practice
> mathematics in all walks life without ever referring to it (to themselves)
> as mathematics. The vast majority of theory which deals with abstract forms
> (without reference to "real" conditions of existence) is mathematical (in
> the sense Peirce ascribes to it). And so, I think the problem is one of
> personal positioning and self-understanding rather than practice itself -
> which, in agreement with Peirce, I think we all do more or less in common
> form.
>
> Best
>
> Jack
>
> --
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 
> on behalf of robert marty 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 17, 2021 8:59 AM
> *To:* Margaretha Hendrickx 
> *Cc:* tabor...@primus.ca ; Peirce-L <
> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Gary Fuhrman 
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list
> (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c
>
> *Warning*
>
> This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System.
> Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the
> sender and know the content is safe.
> Dear Margaretha,
>
> Your conception of attitude is in interpersonal relations, very
> psychological. But it is not about that... it is about epistemology ...
> Here is for example a very vertical "*epistemological attitude*" of
> Peirce :
>
> *""Every systematic philosopher must provide himself a classification of
> the sciences. Comte first proposed to arrange the sciences in a series of
> steps, each leading another. This general idea may be adopted, and we may
> adapt our phraseology to the image of the well of truth with flights of
> stairs leading down into it:*
>
> *We divide the whole into three great parts:*
>
>
>
> * - mathematics, the study of ideal constructions without reference to
> their real existence,- empirics, the study of phenomena with the
> purpose of identifying their forms with those mathematics has studied,*
>
> * - pragmatics, the study of how we ought to behave in the light of the
> truths of empirics."*
>
> (C.S. Peirce, MS 1345, undated, transcription 1976: NEM, vol III.2 1122)"
>
> And now try to get a horizontal comment on Peirce-L (*on the sociological
> axis*) that takes into account this question of identification of forms
> ... and if you are answered "OK" then ask where and when your interlocutors
> tried to give content to their agreement "in the flights of stairs within
> of well of truth"
>
> NB: this classification of sciences is the simplest he provided ... but
> the most detailed ones are consistent with this matrix.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert Marty
> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list?

[Bernard Morand]

John, List,

Le 16/10/2021 à 23:58, sowa @bestweb.net a écrit :


I agree with ET.  Most of the complaints seem to be generated by three 
people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce topics for 
which they have no canned answer. An example is my note about 
phaneroscopy as a science egg.  ADT had no explanation for Peirce's 
remark. Somebody mentioned the attempt by Atkins to broaden 
phaneroscopy..  But that attempt blurred the line between phaneroscopy 
and normative science.  When I observed that the combination of 
phaneroscopy and normative science would be equivalent to semeiotic, 
they refused to answer. /*These are very important questions that need 
to be asked.*/  I am not complaining.  I am asking a question that 
gets to the heart of Peirce's 1903 classification. (my emphasis)




I strongly agree with this statement from John.

I was surprised at first reading by the mixing of two topics in the 
discussion about the ADT slides, a mix which he himself posited in his 
presentation and which seemed to me as being unnecessary.


I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be cleared 
up independently of the question of classification of sciences.


On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an 
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic 
of the categories.


This is too much putting the cart before the horse.

Furthermore I wonder whether the Peirce's aim after 1903 was not to 
compare the logical reality of the categories with the observable facts 
of living signs, hence his strong interest for his correspondence with 
Lady Welby.


If this was the case, something we would call today experimental method, 
then the observation of living signs (phanerons) needs to be conducted 
out of the categories schema and not vice versa.


So the matter of classification of phaneroscopy would have to come after.

Coming back to the reading of ADT slides, what have we learned from it 
on the List ? None of the initiators of the topic has offered any 
insight into concluding remarks (at least as it appears to me).


Regards

Bernard

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY]

Robert, List,

I think that Peirce's classification, quoted in your post below, is absolutely 
accurate (and I'm firmly within the sociological axis). I would say, though, 
that just as Peirce considered people to be practicing phaneroscopy (artists 
and so on) even when they were unaware of it, it is also highly possible (or in 
fact, probable) that people practice mathematics in all walks life without ever 
referring to it (to themselves) as mathematics. The vast majority of theory 
which deals with abstract forms (without reference to "real" conditions of 
existence) is mathematical (in the sense Peirce ascribes to it). And so, I 
think the problem is one of personal positioning and self-understanding rather 
than practice itself - which, in agreement with Peirce, I think we all do more 
or less in common form.

Best

Jack


From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  on 
behalf of robert marty 
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 8:59 AM
To: Margaretha Hendrickx 
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca ; Peirce-L 
; Gary Fuhrman 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was 
Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

*Warning*

This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not 
reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know 
the content is safe.

Dear Margaretha,

Your conception of attitude is in interpersonal relations, very psychological. 
But it is not about that... it is about epistemology ... Here is for example a 
very vertical "epistemological attitude" of Peirce :


""Every systematic philosopher must provide himself a classification of the 
sciences. Comte first proposed to arrange the sciences in a series of steps, 
each leading another. This general idea may be adopted, and we may adapt our 
phraseology to the image of the well of truth with flights of stairs leading 
down into it:

We divide the whole into three great parts:

 - mathematics, the study of ideal constructions without reference to their 
real existence,

 - empirics, the study of phenomena with the purpose of identifying their forms 
with those mathematics has studied,

 - pragmatics, the study of how we ought to behave in the light of the truths 
of empirics."

(C.S. Peirce, MS 1345, undated, transcription 1976: NEM, vol III.2 1122)"

And now try to get a horizontal comment on Peirce-L (on the sociological axis) 
that takes into account this question of identification of forms ... and if you 
are answered "OK" then ask where and when your interlocutors tried to give 
content to their agreement "in the flights of stairs within of well of truth"

NB: this classification of sciences is the simplest he provided ... but the 
most detailed ones are consistent with this matrix.

Best regards,

Robert Marty

Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/



Le sam. 16 oct. 2021 à 18:51, Margaretha Hendrickx 
mailto:mahe3...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
What about taking this conversation off list, as in literally off list?  For 
example, to a Skype or ZOOM session that we treat as a drink/juice-in-a-bar 
happening where no one is allowed to talk about serious stuff for the first 
half hour?  Something like an international Peirce Meet 'n Greet?

Or who knows?  Some list members may be living in driving distance from one 
another.  I live in Ithaca, NY, USA.

What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and dice 
Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental listening; that 
is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down attitude (spatial 
metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to switch into a 
horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).



On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky 
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:

Exactly!! That's the spirit!

And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on this list.

Edwina



On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:

I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining about the 
subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that would be more 
to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn’t have to read 
all those complaints any more.



Gary f.



} Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society to admit it 
or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time



From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 
On Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
To: s...@bestweb.net
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's 
contributions to the 21st c



List,



I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list.



Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[robert marty]

Dear Margaretha,

Your conception of attitude is in interpersonal relations, very
psychological. But it is not about that... it is about epistemology ...
Here is for example a very vertical "*epistemological attitude*" of Peirce :

*""Every systematic philosopher must provide himself a classification of
the sciences. Comte first proposed to arrange the sciences in a series of
steps, each leading another. This general idea may be adopted, and we may
adapt our phraseology to the image of the well of truth with flights of
stairs leading down into it:*

*We divide the whole into three great parts:*



* - mathematics, the study of ideal constructions without reference to
their real existence,- empirics, the study of phenomena with the
purpose of identifying their forms with those mathematics has studied,*

* - pragmatics, the study of how we ought to behave in the light of the
truths of empirics."*

(C.S. Peirce, MS 1345, undated, transcription 1976: NEM, vol III.2 1122)"

And now try to get a horizontal comment on Peirce-L (*on the sociological
axis*) that takes into account this question of identification of forms ...
and if you are answered "OK" then ask where and when your interlocutors
tried to give content to their agreement "in the flights of stairs within
of well of truth"

NB: this classification of sciences is the simplest he provided ... but the
most detailed ones are consistent with this matrix.

Best regards,

Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le sam. 16 oct. 2021 à 18:51, Margaretha Hendrickx  a
écrit :

> What about taking this conversation off list, as in literally off list?
> For example, to a Skype or ZOOM session that we treat as a
> drink/juice-in-a-bar happening where no one is allowed to talk about
> serious stuff for the first half hour?  Something like an international
> Peirce Meet 'n Greet?
>
> Or who knows?  Some list members may be living in driving distance from
> one another.  I live in Ithaca, NY, USA.
>
> What I am trying to say is that it does not make sense to slice and dice
> Peirce.  A lot can be learned from engaging in non-judgmental listening;
> that is, thinking without a judgmental sucking-up/talking-down attitude
> (spatial metaphor).  Face-to-face interaction makes it easier to switch
> into a horizontal attitude (spatial metaphor).
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> Exactly!! That's the spirit!
>>
>> And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on this
>> list.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
>>
>> I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining about
>> the subject matter of postings on this list to create a new one that would
>> be more to their liking. At least we (subscribers to peirce-l) wouldn’t
>> have to read all those complaints any more.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>>
>>
>> } Truth is truth, whether it is opposed to the interests of society to
>> admit it or not. [Peirce, CP 8.143, EP2:61] {
>>
>> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
>>
>>
>>
>> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Margaretha Hendrickx
>> Sent: 16-Oct-21 11:22
>> To: s...@bestweb.net
>> Cc: Peirce-L
>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's
>> contributions to the 21st c
>>
>>
>>
>> List,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it is absurd to start a separate mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Especially since its purpose would be to use Peirce's work as a mirror to
>> see what is going on in society today.
>>
>>
>>
>> If people feel perturbed or unvalidated after reading the emails
>> distributed by this list, well, have you ever had a discussion about the
>> possibility that this has to do more with what is going on in society today
>> and that one's feelings about society are being projected on the emails
>> distributed by this list?
>>
>>
>>
>> My very best, Margaretha H.
>>
>>
>>
>> PS.  I also find it unreasonable to expect people to reply to list emails
>> within 24-48 hrs.  I cannot operate in that way.  I am juggling many other
>> balls.  There are many interesting emails on this list, but I am simply not
>> in the right place to reply to them immediately. I hope to reply to them in
>> the future once my schedule is less hectic.  The reason I replied to this
>> email immediately before other ones, well, it caught my attention and it
>> kept on bothering me.  Its divisive rhetoric mirrors the divisive
>> rhetoric in society at large.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me end with a question.  Popper is known for warning against the
>> manipulative use of language and logic. Did Peirce do something similar?
>> If my question shows a lack of understanding of Peirce's work, I
>> apologize.  I am still in the learning stages.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:02 PM sowa @bestweb.net 
>> wrote:
>>
>> List,
>>