RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures)
gnox, There must have been some misunderstanding of my post, if you could not find what I meant. Which is foud EP 2, 134-135. Even if CSP states in his Harward Lectures (1903) "I have not succeeded any better than this: Pragmatism is the principle that every theoretical judgement expressible in the indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose only meaning, if it has any, lies in its tendency to enforce a corresponding practical maxim expressible as a conditional sentencehaving its apodosis in the imperative mood. " EP 2, 134-135 Now, this CSP gave in 1903, quite late. So we may certainly claim that he gives a so-called understatement in writing on having not succeeded any better than... And may infer that this formulation had been most critically inspected several times over a long period of his work. - This I take to be a stamp of approval. The quote above points at "a corresponding practical maxim" (note: "imperative mood"). CSP continues with the Maxim of Pragmatism, as he originally stated it. "Consider what effects (etc) So CSP first presents a later formulation of the principle, which, in relation to the earlier formulation (in the context of this particular lecture) may taken as a second (II). That is a later one. And in this very context the one taken up after it, is to taken as a first (I). On which grounds? - On the grounds of simplest arithmetics and the very idea of ordinality. I, II, III. In the Harward Lecture (1903) Peirce leaves this, and goes on with the theory and concept of probability. - Why? To me the answer seems clear: Because a proper theory of probabality is absolutely needed in order to understand and put into scientific use both of the formulations. I will come back to other responses in this thread as soon as possible. But, alas, I will be away for at least a couple of days. This question by gnox seemed the most pressing one. Also, I wish to think before I respond. Sometimes I give in to the temptation of a quich response. Best, Kirsti Määttänen g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 16.2.2018 20:04: Kirsti, Jon A.S. gave five of Peirce’s formulations of the “pragmatic maxim,” but I haven’t found the place in EP2 where “he gave a final stamp of his approval by explicitly NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The Pragmatic Maxim (in EP vol 2).” Can you tell us where to find that? Otherwise, as Jon said, we can’t tell which formulation is the “second,” or discuss how a third might differ from it. By the way, my book is not about Peirce; it’s about the philosophical issues involving signs, and though it quotes Peirce quite a lot, it’s about those semiotic issues rather than issues of Peirce interpretation. I’ve had my say about those interpretive issues elsewhere, such as peirce-l and a couple of papers, but not very much in _Turning Signs_. Gary f. -Original Message- From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] Sent: 14-Feb-18 14:23 To: PEIRCE L Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures) Gary f., list, Your response presented as full an understanding of essential points in my post as I could ever hope. Even more, I was greatly and happily surprised. And yes, of course there are any formulations of the ideas conveyed by the two short expressions he gave a final stamp of his approval by explicitly NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The Pragmatic Maxim (in EP vol 2). (Note the cardinals!) He writes about them all the time, of course. In search of as good a linguistic expression as he was ever able to come up with. But, at a later date he takes up the First of these feeling a need for a Second, which does not (in any way) contradict with accepting the First, but taking it into a further stage, so to speak. I have not read your book, Gary. I do not read about Peirce, have not done so for centuries. Which, just as you write, gives much more weight and value to us both. - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures)
Kirsti, Jon A.S. gave five of Peirce’s formulations of the “pragmatic maxim,” but I haven’t found the place in EP2 where “he gave a final stamp of his approval by explicitly NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The Pragmatic Maxim (in EP vol 2).” Can you tell us where to find that? Otherwise, as Jon said, we can’t tell which formulation is the “second,” or discuss how a third might differ from it. By the way, my book is not about Peirce; it’s about the philosophical issues involving signs, and though it quotes Peirce quite a lot, it’s about those semiotic issues rather than issues of Peirce interpretation. I’ve had my say about those interpretive issues elsewhere, such as peirce-l and a couple of papers, but not very much in Turning Signs. Gary f. -Original Message- From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] Sent: 14-Feb-18 14:23 To: PEIRCE L Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures) Gary f., list, Your response presented as full an understanding of essential points in my post as I could ever hope. Even more, I was greatly and happily surprised. And yes, of course there are any formulations of the ideas conveyed by the two short expressions he gave a final stamp of his approval by explicitly NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The Pragmatic Maxim (in EP vol 2). (Note the cardinals!) He writes about them all the time, of course. In search of as good a linguistic expression as he was ever able to come up with. But, at a later date he takes up the First of these feeling a need for a Second, which does not (in any way) contradict with accepting the First, but taking it into a further stage, so to speak. I have not read your book, Gary. I do not read about Peirce, have not done so for centuries. Which, just as you write, gives much more weight and value to us both. - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures)
Jon, list, I often recommend close reading when examining the pragmatic maxim. Perhaps no better example than to suggest it of #1 (CP 5.402), for there is something missing in your transcription and it makes all the difference. With best wishes, Jerry R On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > List: > > With respect to the comments below from both Kirsti and Gary F., as the > old joke goes, "I resemble that remark." I am definitely someone who > "often finds that the thought is changed by the act of writing it down," > and I generally spend a lot of time (probably too much; almost an hour just > on this post) formulating and reformulating my words accordingly. As > another variously attributed saying goes, "I write to find out what I > think." I hope it is always evident that my own positions on various > matters continue to evolve, and I greatly appreciate having this forum for > bouncing my tentative and sometimes misguided ideas about Peirce off those > of you who have been wrestling with the relevant issues far longer than I > have. > > Kirsti: > > Regarding the pragmatic maxim, as both Gary F. and Jon A. have pointed > out, Peirce offered more than two formulations. > >1. Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical >bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our >conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. >(CP 5.402, EP 1:132; 1878) >2. ... every theoretical judgment expressible in a sentence in the >indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose only meaning, if it has >any, lies in its tendency to enforce a corresponding practical maxim >expressible as a conditional sentence having its apodosis in the imperative >mood. (CP 5.18, EP 2:135; 1903) >3. The entire intellectual purport of any symbol consists in the total >of all general modes of rational conduct which, conditionally upon all the >possible different circumstances and desires, would ensue upon the >acceptance of the symbol. (CP 5.438, EP 2:346; 1905) >4. In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one >should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by >necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these >consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception. (CP 5.9; >c. 1905) >5. ... the whole meaning of an intellectual predicate is that certain >kinds of events would happen, once in so often, in the course of >experience, under certain kinds of existential [conditions/circumstances]. >(CP 5.468, EP 2:402; 1907) > > #1 is certainly the First one, but Peirce quoted it upon offering both #2 > and #3 as different restatements of it; which of these were you identifying > as the Second one? Do you think that the other three shed any further > light on what Peirce had in mind? > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:23 PM, wrote: > >> Gary f., list, >> >> Your response presented as full an understanding of essential points in >> my post as I could ever hope. Even more, I was greatly and happily >> surprised. >> >> And yes, of course there are any formulations of the ideas conveyed by >> the two short expressions he gave a final stamp of his approval by >> explicitly NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The >> Pragmatic Maxim (in EP vol 2). (Note the cardinals!) >> >> He writes about them all the time, of course. In search of as good a >> linguistic expression as he was ever able to come up with. >> >> But, at a later date he takes up the First of these feeling a need for a >> Second, which does not (in any way) contradict with accepting the First, >> but taking it into a further stage, so to speak. >> >> I have not read your book, Gary. I do not read about Peirce, have not >> done so for centuries. Which, just as you write, gives much more weight and >> value to us both. >> >> If you see my point on ordinality and cardinality, it is very, very >> exceptional. Simplest math is most difficult for both philosophers and >> mathematicians to understand. There is this cultural aura around math which >> seems to make people bow there heads and kneel. Instead of approaching the >> questions at hand head on. >> >> I have always preached that it takes courage and guts to think properly >> and face the consequences of one's own thinking. >> >> I am very happy to have had the experience of feeling understood in my >> old age with some issues I've almost given up hope with. >> >> My sincere thanks to your, Gary f. >> >> Kirsti >> >> g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 14.2.2018 19:32: >> >>> Kirsti, >>> >>> I did give your post on ordinality and cardinality a second reading, >>> and I think I see your point, but I don’t h
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures)
List: With respect to the comments below from both Kirsti and Gary F., as the old joke goes, "I resemble that remark." I am definitely someone who "often finds that the thought is changed by the act of writing it down," and I generally spend a lot of time (probably too much; almost an hour just on this post) formulating and reformulating my words accordingly. As another variously attributed saying goes, "I write to find out what I think." I hope it is always evident that my own positions on various matters continue to evolve, and I greatly appreciate having this forum for bouncing my tentative and sometimes misguided ideas about Peirce off those of you who have been wrestling with the relevant issues far longer than I have. Kirsti: Regarding the pragmatic maxim, as both Gary F. and Jon A. have pointed out, Peirce offered more than two formulations. 1. Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. (CP 5.402, EP 1:132; 1878) 2. ... every theoretical judgment expressible in a sentence in the indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose only meaning, if it has any, lies in its tendency to enforce a corresponding practical maxim expressible as a conditional sentence having its apodosis in the imperative mood. (CP 5.18, EP 2:135; 1903) 3. The entire intellectual purport of any symbol consists in the total of all general modes of rational conduct which, conditionally upon all the possible different circumstances and desires, would ensue upon the acceptance of the symbol. (CP 5.438, EP 2:346; 1905) 4. In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception. (CP 5.9; c. 1905) 5. ... the whole meaning of an intellectual predicate is that certain kinds of events would happen, once in so often, in the course of experience, under certain kinds of existential [conditions/circumstances]. (CP 5.468, EP 2:402; 1907) #1 is certainly the First one, but Peirce quoted it upon offering both #2 and #3 as different restatements of it; which of these were you identifying as the Second one? Do you think that the other three shed any further light on what Peirce had in mind? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:23 PM, wrote: > Gary f., list, > > Your response presented as full an understanding of essential points in my > post as I could ever hope. Even more, I was greatly and happily surprised. > > And yes, of course there are any formulations of the ideas conveyed by the > two short expressions he gave a final stamp of his approval by explicitly > NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The Pragmatic Maxim > (in EP vol 2). (Note the cardinals!) > > He writes about them all the time, of course. In search of as good a > linguistic expression as he was ever able to come up with. > > But, at a later date he takes up the First of these feeling a need for a > Second, which does not (in any way) contradict with accepting the First, > but taking it into a further stage, so to speak. > > I have not read your book, Gary. I do not read about Peirce, have not done > so for centuries. Which, just as you write, gives much more weight and > value to us both. > > If you see my point on ordinality and cardinality, it is very, very > exceptional. Simplest math is most difficult for both philosophers and > mathematicians to understand. There is this cultural aura around math which > seems to make people bow there heads and kneel. Instead of approaching the > questions at hand head on. > > I have always preached that it takes courage and guts to think properly > and face the consequences of one's own thinking. > > I am very happy to have had the experience of feeling understood in my old > age with some issues I've almost given up hope with. > > My sincere thanks to your, Gary f. > > Kirsti > > g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 14.2.2018 19:32: > >> Kirsti, >> >> I did give your post on ordinality and cardinality a second reading, >> and I think I see your point, but I don’t have any particular >> response to it, except to say that these logico-mathematical issues >> are likely to arise again as we move on to Lowell Lectures 4 and 5, >> where Peirce has much to say about “_multitude”_. >> >> I guess it’s time to start on Lowell 4, which I’ll do any day now >> … my transcription is already up on my website, >> http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell4.htm [1] . >> >> About Peirce’s formulations of the pragmatic maxim, I’m pretty >> sure there ar
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures)
Gary f., list, Your response presented as full an understanding of essential points in my post as I could ever hope. Even more, I was greatly and happily surprised. And yes, of course there are any formulations of the ideas conveyed by the two short expressions he gave a final stamp of his approval by explicitly NAMING them AS The first and The second formulation of The Pragmatic Maxim (in EP vol 2). (Note the cardinals!) He writes about them all the time, of course. In search of as good a linguistic expression as he was ever able to come up with. But, at a later date he takes up the First of these feeling a need for a Second, which does not (in any way) contradict with accepting the First, but taking it into a further stage, so to speak. I have not read your book, Gary. I do not read about Peirce, have not done so for centuries. Which, just as you write, gives much more weight and value to us both. If you see my point on ordinality and cardinality, it is very, very exceptional. Simplest math is most difficult for both philosophers and mathematicians to understand. There is this cultural aura around math which seems to make people bow there heads and kneel. Instead of approaching the questions at hand head on. I have always preached that it takes courage and guts to think properly and face the consequences of one's own thinking. I am very happy to have had the experience of feeling understood in my old age with some issues I've almost given up hope with. My sincere thanks to your, Gary f. Kirsti g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 14.2.2018 19:32: Kirsti, I did give your post on ordinality and cardinality a second reading, and I think I see your point, but I don’t have any particular response to it, except to say that these logico-mathematical issues are likely to arise again as we move on to Lowell Lectures 4 and 5, where Peirce has much to say about “_multitude”_. I guess it’s time to start on Lowell 4, which I’ll do any day now … my transcription is already up on my website, http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell4.htm [1] . About Peirce’s formulations of the pragmatic maxim, I’m pretty sure there are more than two in his writings, so it would help if you would quote exactly the two that you refer to as the “first” and “second.” Then we can look for a third. I think your new post makes a very important point when you say that “the self to write down was the former self, not exactly the same as the one(self) doing the writing down.” Or as I might put it, When one decides to write down what one is thinking, one often finds that the thought is changed by the act of writing it down. And it may change again when you read what you’ve written. So, as you say, “We all (hopefully) reformulate what we write during writing. Up until it feels good enough. - Or should do so.” Some of us who post here usually do go through such a process. Others are so eager to have their say that they usually hit “Send” without even looking over what they’ve written. That’s one extreme which tends to increase the quantity, and decrease the quality, of posts on the list,— which makes many subscribers impatient. At the other extreme are those who formulated their ‘positions’ years ago, but never tire of repeating those same formulations or opinions, usually in the context of agreeing or disagreeing with somebody else’s formulation. That habit also increases the quantity, and decreases the overall quality, of posts on the list, because it usually generates repetitive “debates” instead of developing a genuine _argument_ (in the full Peircean sense of that word). I think the ideal kind of post on the list is somewhere between those two extremes. It’s the kind of post that has already gone through a formulation and reformulation process, but takes the result of that prior process as an “experiment,” and genuinely hopes to learn something new from the result, i.e. from whatever response it gets. As you say, “A living mind is continuously active, and any symbol lives as long as [its] continuity gets created and recreated by new minds, in new contexts.” For instance, I’ve said very similar things in my book, but your statement is every bit as _original _as mine was, because it was formulated based on _your_ experience and _your_ way of using the language. Both of us have “recreated” the symbol by reformulating it, “replicating” it in different ways, and thus taken its expression a step or two further. That’s part of what I call a genuine _argument_ (as opposed to a debate, which is a kind of context between two fixed positions). It’s the sense in which Peirce said that the Universe is “an argument”, “a vast representamen … working out its conclusions in living realities” (EP2:193-4, CP 5.119). I hope you don’t find this presumptuous. At least I can assure you that it’s been formulated with some care, including careful attention to your post. So if you think I got you wrong, I’d really like to know that! Gar
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures)
Kirsti,
I did give your post on ordinality and cardinality a second reading, and I
think I see your point, but I don’t have any particular response to it, except
to say that these logico-mathematical issues are likely to arise again as we
move on to Lowell Lectures 4 and 5, where Peirce has much to say about
“multitude”.
I guess it’s time to start on Lowell 4, which I’ll do any day now … my
transcription is already up on my website, http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell4.htm .
About Peirce’s formulations of the pragmatic maxim, I’m pretty sure there are
more than two in his writings, so it would help if you would quote exactly the
two that you refer to as the “first” and “second.” Then we can look for a third.
I think your new post makes a very important point when you say that “the self
to write down was the former self, not exactly the same as the one(self) doing
the writing down.” Or as I might put it, When one decides to write down what
one is thinking, one often finds that the thought is changed by the act of
writing it down. And it may change again when you read what you’ve written. So,
as you say, “We all (hopefully) reformulate what we write during writing. Up
until it feels good enough. - Or should do so.”
Some of us who post here usually do go through such a process. Others are so
eager to have their say that they usually hit “Send” without even looking over
what they’ve written. That’s one extreme which tends to increase the quantity,
and decrease the quality, of posts on the list,— which makes many subscribers
impatient. At the other extreme are those who formulated their ‘positions’
years ago, but never tire of repeating those same formulations or opinions,
usually in the context of agreeing or disagreeing with somebody else’s
formulation. That habit also increases the quantity, and decreases the overall
quality, of posts on the list, because it usually generates repetitive
“debates” instead of developing a genuine argument (in the full Peircean sense
of that word).
I think the ideal kind of post on the list is somewhere between those two
extremes. It’s the kind of post that has already gone through a formulation and
reformulation process, but takes the result of that prior process as an
“experiment,” and genuinely hopes to learn something new from the result, i.e.
from whatever response it gets. As you say, “A living mind is continuously
active, and any symbol lives as long as [its] continuity gets created and
recreated by new minds, in new contexts.” For instance, I’ve said very similar
things in my book, but your statement is every bit as original as mine was,
because it was formulated based on your experience and your way of using the
language. Both of us have “recreated” the symbol by reformulating it,
“replicating” it in different ways, and thus taken its expression a step or two
further. That’s part of what I call a genuine argument (as opposed to a debate,
which is a kind of context between two fixed positions). It’s the sense in
which Peirce said that the Universe is “an argument”, “a vast representamen …
working out its conclusions in living realities” (EP2:193-4, CP 5.119).
I hope you don’t find this presumptuous. At least I can assure you that it’s
been formulated with some care, including careful attention to your post. So if
you think I got you wrong, I’d really like to know that!
Gary f.
} Poetry is a search for the inexplicable. [Wallace Stevens] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
-Original Message-
From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
Sent: 14-Feb-18 08:14
To: PEIRCE L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims and mediation (Was Lowell Lectures)
List,
First I wish to express my appreciation to Gary f., to his lead and his
commentaries on LL. - However, it seem to me that the discussions tend to get
muddled on certain very, very basic respects.
Peirce's first formulation of the Pragmatic Maxims was about "practical
bearings". So it was about doing something, more specifically it was about
experimentation. Experimentation is about doing systematical observations (with
some stated, conscious rules, mostly with non conscius habits of feeling). This
applies to thought experiments just as well.
The second, later formulation of the Pragmatic Maxim is about understanding and
interpreting the ideas an thoughts mediated by texts, diagrams (etc).
But to my knowledge CSP did not write down a third, strictly worded formulation
of the Maxim. If there is one to be found, it must reside in his very latest
writings.
However, he left a legacy on how to find and grasp the essence of The Third. -
To my mind Peircean phenomenology is the Turning Point. And the key.
Writing down or drawing down means making one's ideas observable, objectifying
them to be inspected. By oneself AND by others. But the self to write down was
the former self, not exactly the same as the
