Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

[Gary Richmond]

Cathy, list,

When I first read your remark suggesting that "the birth, growth and
development of new hypostatic abstractions" should be in the position
of 3ns rather than argumentative proof of the validity of the
mathematics as I had earlier abduced, I thought this might be another
case of the kind of difficulty in assigning the terms of 2ns and 3ns
in genuine triadic relations which had Peirce, albeit for a very short
time in his career, associating 3ns with induction (while before and
after that time he put deduction in the place of 3ns as "necessary
reasoning"--I have discussed this several times before on the list and
so will now only refer those interested to the passage, deleted from
the 1903 Harvard Lectures--276-7 in Patricia Turrisi's edition--where
Peirce discusses that categorial matter).

I think his revision of his revision to his original position may have
been brought about by the clarification resulting from thinking of
abduction/deduction/induction beyond critical logic (where they are
first analyzed as distinct patterns of inference), then in methodeutic
where "a complete inquiry"--in which  hypothesis formation is 1ns, the
deduction of the implications of the hypothesis for testing is 3ns,
and, finally, the actual inductive testing is 2ns--provides a kind of
whetstone for categorial thinking about these three. (Yet, even in
that 1903 passage he remarks that he "will leave the question open.")

Be that as it may, I am beginning to think that you are clearly on to
something and that that transforming of a predicate into a relation
which we call hypostatic abstraction certainly ought to be in the
place of 3ns. Re-reading parts of Jay Zeman's famous and fine article
on hypostatic abstraction further strengthened that opinion. See:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/jzeman/peirce_on_abstraction.htm  Zeman
writes:

"It is hypostatic or subjectal abstraction that Peirce is interested
in; a hint as to why he is interested in it is given in his allusions
in these passages to mathematical reasoning [. . .] Jaakko Hintikka
has done us the great service of bringing to our attention and tying
to contemporary experience one of Peirce's central observations about
necessary—which is to say mathematical—reasoning: this is that
nontrivial deductive reasoning, even in areas where explicit
postulates are employed, always considers something not implied in the
conceptions so far gained [in the particular course of reasoning in
question], which neither the definition of the object of research nor
anything yet known about could of themselves suggest, although they
give room for it."

As is well known, Peirce calls this kind of reasoning "theorematic"
(in contrast to "corollarial reasoning) because it introduces "novel
elements into the reasoning process in the form of icons, which are
then 'experimented upon in imagination.' "

Zeman quotes Hintikka to the effect that "Peirce himself seems to have
considered a vindication of the concept of abstraction as the most
important application of his discovery [of the theorematic/corollarial
distinction]" and then remarks that "Peirce would indeed have agreed
that the light shed on necessary reasoning by this distinction helps
greatly to illuminate the role of abstraction. . ."

See, also: EP2:394  where Peirce comments that it is hypostatic
abstraction that leads to the generalizality of a predicate and, of
course, what is general is 3ns. In short, I think you are quite right
Cathy to have suggested that correction of my categorial assignments.
As Peirce notes near the end of the "Additament" to the Neglected
Argument, hypothetic abstraction concerns itself with that which
necessarily would be *if* certain conditions were established
(EP2:450).

Best,

Gary

On 2/21/12, Catherine Legg  wrote:
> Gary wrote:
>
>
> For the moment I am seeing these
> three as forming a genuine tricategorial relationship, which I'd diagram
> in my trikonic way, thus:
>
> Theoretical mathematics:
>
> (1ns) mathematical hypothesis formation (creative abduction--that "piece
> of mathematics")
> |> (3ns) argumentative proof (of the validity of the  mathematics)
> (2ns) the mathematics itself
>
> [...]
>
> Wouldn't argumentative proof be the 2ness, and the 3ness would be
> something like the birth, growth and development of new hypostatic
> abstractions?
>
> Cheers, Cathy
>
> -
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
> listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of
> the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to
> PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>


-- 
Gary Richmond
Humanities Department
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College--City University of New York

-
You are receiv

Re: [peirce-l] Poem

[Stephen C. Rose]

The main thing that interests me is whether this "simple" appropriation of
Peirce - as one to whom we can refer powerful arguments against binary (you
versus me) thinking and for triadic thought (always tending toward a
positive resolution even if it takes try after try) - is important to
advance. Does it improve on current cultural and political patterns. Is it
true? I personally feel comfortable with that sort of thinking but I would
hardly be able to give it the armor it would need (if it exists). To cut to
the "second" (blunt truth), what does one make of Peirce's seeming approval
of the idea that virtually every unhappy event contains a silver lining? Or
even of the notion that realism is naive. All this suggests to me is that
there is a good deal of work to do.

*ShortFormContent at Blogger* 



On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Victoria N. Alexander  wrote:

>
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:45 PM, malgosia askanas wrote:
>
> I think I can remember BUDHA'S WAY OF THE MIDDLE (mediation, third..)
>
>
> I would rather question the efficacy of Buddha's Way of the Middle against
> fascist regimes, such as those of Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR or
> present-day North Korea or Iran
>
> or the US?
>
> Steve,
>
> I also like the poem, esp  "Of the fatal binary
> That has never reached a third."  Two parties become two sides of the same
> coin without a third.
>
> Tori
>
>
> .
>
> -malgosia
>
>
> -
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
> listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body
> of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to
> PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>
>
>
>
> _
> Victoria N. Alexander, PhD
> www.dactylfoundation.org
> www.torialexander.com
>
>
>
>

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] Poem

[malgosia askanas]

>I think I can remember BUDHA'S WAY OF THE MIDDLE (mediation, third..)

I would rather question the efficacy of Buddha's Way of the Middle against 
fascist regimes, such as those of Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR or present-day 
North Korea or Iran.

-malgosia 

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] Poem

[ernesto cultura]

Wonderful, Mr. Steve. I think I can remember BUDHA'S WAY OF THE MIDDLE 
(mediation, third..) A poem full of sensibility. Good, Ernesto
 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:26:07 -0500
Subject: Poem
From: stever...@gmail.com
To: PEIRCE-L@listserv.iupui.edu

Would this qualify as a Peircean poem?
How about no war in Iran http://ping.fm/kCcFs  
ShortFormContent at Blogger


-

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU 

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] Dangerous Method

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircers,

Here are the passages from Peirce and Freud that always strike me
as resonating with each other, throwing light in one direction on
pragmatic objects in the context of inquiry as conceived by Peirce
and reflecting light in the other direction on Freud's "Project" of
1895, in which later commentators would not only see the first signs
of object relations theory but also distinct hints of cybernetic ideas.

It looks like I copied these passage out on at least two occasions,
once in 2003 on the Arisbe List and again in 2004 in the Inquiry List:

Expectation, Satisfaction, Disappointment

Arisbe List

* http://stderr.org/pipermail/arisbe/2003-February/thread.html#1628
# http://stderr.org/pipermail/arisbe/2003-February/001628.html

Inquiry List

* http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-November/thread.html#1867
# http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-November/001867.html

I might try blogging about these passages and what I see in them ...
maybe tomorrow ...

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To 
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the 
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the 
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

[peirce-l] Poem

[Stephen C. Rose]

Would this qualify as a Peircean poem?

How about no war in Iran http://ping.fm/kCcFs

*ShortFormContent at Blogger* 

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] Dangerous Method

[ernesto cultura]

Dear List.I would like to say  "Always in fugue" Sorry
 Ernesto Pachito (EC) From: pachito_profes...@hotmail.com
To: peirce-l@listserv.iupui.edu
Subject: FW: Dangerous Method
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:23:48 -0300








 Just sending to my Dear peirceans. 
 
From: pachito_profes...@hotmail.com
To: jawb...@att.net
Subject: RE: Dangerous Method
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:22:07 -0300










Dr. Awbrey,
 
Your rememberence is marvellous.
In jacques Lacan's writtings there is an interesting paper about a tale by 
Edgar Allan Poe:
 
The Purloined Letter is the name of this tale. And Lacan's famous  seminar is 
about it.
 
In this tale the letter is seen as a kind of "Significant" that "slips" "over" 
many  "meanings". Ok. Let's forget for a while that "Significant" and "meaning" 
are Saussure's terms.  In Lacan, the letter is the frontier between an instance 
called "Simbolic" and another called "Real". Well, that is the point. what is 
real? (terra incognita). What is "simbolic" for Lacan? Nothing but social and 
cultural-anthropologic representations. And there is a third instance called 
"Imaginary" = Individual representations. Real is "Object" for Peirce. But not 
a tangible thing or things as everybody knows. So, let me explain that the 3 
instances of Lacan aren't they the 3 peircean cathegories.  The Letter is 
Representamen,  The Real is Object (ever in fugue, in a certain measure) and 
Interpretant varies  and multiplies in individual minds. But there is much more 
to be said. best regards Ernesto Pachito. 
 > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:48:07 -0500
> From: jawb...@att.net
> To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> CC: ari...@stderr.org; inqu...@stderr.org
> Subject: Re: Dangerous Method
> 
> Peircers,
> 
> I haven't had a chance to hunt down the passages that came to mind,
> but it happens that I was currently reviewing a favorite text from
> Peirce that falls into roughly the same ballpark, at least it does
> within the play on my own field of dreams. At any rate, I found it
> worth the while to blog a choice bit of it for further reflection:
> 
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/02/22/ouch%E2%9D%A2/
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon
> 
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > EC = Ernesto Cultura
> > 
> > EC: Dear List, without pretension.
> > I hope you like this: https://www.createspace.com/3788010
> > It is on Object (Peirce), and Das Ding (Freud, etc. ...)
> > obvious relationship. I also wrote this (2002) about Peirce
> > and Chinese concept of Tao https://www.createspace.com/3798955
> > I will search for this book of John Muller.
> > Thanks, Ernesto (Brazil)
> > 
> > Ernesto,
> > 
> > Thanks, noted for comment later, but I'll have to do some searching first
> > before I can find the passages in Peirce and Freud that it brings to mind.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> -- 
> 
> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
> word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> 
> -
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
> listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
> lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of 
> the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to 
> PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU


  
-

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU 

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

[peirce-l] FW: Dangerous Method

[ernesto cultura]

 Just sending to my Dear peirceans.  From: pachito_profes...@hotmail.com
To: jawb...@att.net
Subject: RE: Dangerous Method
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:22:07 -0300










Dr. Awbrey,
 
Your rememberence is marvellous.
In jacques Lacan's writtings there is an interesting paper about a tale by 
Edgar Allan Poe:
 
The Purloined Letter is the name of this tale. And Lacan's famous  seminar is 
about it.
 
In this tale the letter is seen as a kind of "Significant" that "slips" "over" 
many  "meanings". Ok. Let's forget for a while that "Significant" and "meaning" 
are Saussure's terms.  In Lacan, the letter is the frontier between an instance 
called "Simbolic" and another called "Real". Well, that is the point. what is 
real? (terra incognita). What is "simbolic" for Lacan? Nothing but social and 
cultural-anthropologic representations. And there is a third instance called 
"Imaginary" = Individual representations. Real is "Object" for Peirce. But not 
a tangible thing or things as everybody knows. So, let me explain that the 3 
instances of Lacan aren't they the 3 peircean cathegories.  The Letter is 
Representamen,  The Real is Object (ever in fugue, in a certain measure) and 
Interpretant varies  and multiplies in individual minds. But there is much more 
to be said. best regards Ernesto Pachito. 
 > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:48:07 -0500
> From: jawb...@att.net
> To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> CC: ari...@stderr.org; inqu...@stderr.org
> Subject: Re: Dangerous Method
> 
> Peircers,
> 
> I haven't had a chance to hunt down the passages that came to mind,
> but it happens that I was currently reviewing a favorite text from
> Peirce that falls into roughly the same ballpark, at least it does
> within the play on my own field of dreams. At any rate, I found it
> worth the while to blog a choice bit of it for further reflection:
> 
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/02/22/ouch%E2%9D%A2/
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon
> 
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > EC = Ernesto Cultura
> > 
> > EC: Dear List, without pretension.
> > I hope you like this: https://www.createspace.com/3788010
> > It is on Object (Peirce), and Das Ding (Freud, etc. ...)
> > obvious relationship. I also wrote this (2002) about Peirce
> > and Chinese concept of Tao https://www.createspace.com/3798955
> > I will search for this book of John Muller.
> > Thanks, Ernesto (Brazil)
> > 
> > Ernesto,
> > 
> > Thanks, noted for comment later, but I'll have to do some searching first
> > before I can find the passages in Peirce and Freud that it brings to mind.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> -- 
> 
> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
> word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> 
> -
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
> listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
> lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of 
> the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to 
> PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU


  
-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] Dangerous Method

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircers,

I haven't had a chance to hunt down the passages that came to mind,
but it happens that I was currently reviewing a favorite text from
Peirce that falls into roughly the same ballpark, at least it does
within the play on my own field of dreams. At any rate, I found it
worth the while to blog a choice bit of it for further reflection:

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/02/22/ouch%E2%9D%A2/

Regards,

Jon

Jon Awbrey wrote:

EC = Ernesto Cultura

EC: Dear List, without pretension.
I hope you like this: https://www.createspace.com/3788010
It is on Object (Peirce), and Das Ding (Freud, etc. ...)
obvious relationship. I also wrote this (2002) about Peirce
and Chinese concept of Tao https://www.createspace.com/3798955
I will search for this book of John Muller.
Thanks, Ernesto (Brazil)

Ernesto,

Thanks, noted for comment later, but I'll have to do some searching first
before I can find the passages in Peirce and Freud that it brings to mind.

Regards,

Jon


--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To 
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the 
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the 
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU