------------------------------------------
PEIRCE-L Digest 1303 -- February 18-19, 1998
------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CITATION and QUOTATION from messages on PEIRCE-L is permissable if
the individual message is identified by use of the information on
DATE, SENDER, and SUBJECT: e.g.:
From PEIRCE-L Forum, Jan 5, 1998, [name of author of message],
"re: Peirce on Teleology"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If the type is too large and the message runs off the screen on the
right you can shrink the size of the typeface by use of the option
on your browser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it is mostly in ASCII format You can download the
whole document easily by using the SELECT ALL and COPY commands, then
PASTE-ing it into a blank page in your word processor; or you can
SELECT, COPY, and PASTE individual messages using your mouse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: The New List (Paragraph 3)
by THE PARSON FAMILY
2) Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
by piat[…]juno.com (Jim L Piat)
3) please to cancel (temporary) my address
by niederauer
4) Re: The Geometry of the Syllogism
by Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
5) Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
by Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
6) Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
by Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
7) A message from Arien Malec about Tom Anderson
by joseph.ransdell[…]yahoo.com (ransdell, joseph m.)
8) from Mark Weisz on Tom Anderson
by Joseph Ransdell
9) from Mark Weisz on Tom Anderson
by Joseph Ransdell
10) Test message from Mark Weisz
by Mark Weisz
11) Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
by sxskag01[…]homer.louisville.edu (Steven Skaggs)
12) 2nd Message from M. Weisz
by Mark Weisz
13) Re: 2nd Message from M. Weisz
by BugDaddy[…]cris.com (BugDaddy)
14) Re: The New List (Paragraph 3)
by BugDaddy[…]cris.com (BugDaddy)
15) Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
by BugDaddy[…]cris.com (BugDaddy)
16) A new liberation movement?
by joseph.ransdell[…]yahoo.com (ransdell, joseph m.)
17) Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
by Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
18) Re: A new liberation movement?
by piat[…]juno.com (Jim L Piat)
19) Re: Luck Received!!!
by Dennis Bradley Knepp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:26:00 -0600
From: THE PARSON FAMILY
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: The New List (Paragraph 3)
Message-ID: <34EBB458.227A[…]worldnet.att.net>
As Bug Daddy points out
> I sense a bit of ambiguity here: "That universal conception
> which is nearest to sense is that of the present, in general.
> This is a conception, because it is universal." For there are
> two meanings that can be applied here. On the one hand, we have
> a universal conception of the present in general. On the other
> hand we have a particular conception, which is "nearest to
> sense," being identical to the "manifold of sensuous
> impressions," which we saw in paragraph one. Is Peirce
> deliberately combining these fundamentally different conceptions?
I would say yes. There has been a tension between Idealists and
Realists trying to reconcile the possibility of knowing reality with
its independence of mind and various attempts to escape the relativity
of knowledge. C. I. Lewis points out that these are false alternatives.
There is no contradiction between the relativity of knowledge and the
indepedence of its object. He states:
"If the real object can be known at all, it can be known only in its
relation to a mind..."
True pragmatism begins with the acceptance of uncertainty...that our
empirical knowledge is probable only. More strongly, empirical
knowledge begins and ends with our ability to predict. There is no
present experience that comes without the baggage of the past. We
trundle out our filters even as the chaos of the givens piles in upon
us.
More Pierce and comment by Bug Daddy:
> "But as the act of attention has no connotation at all, but is
> the pure denotative power of the mind....and therefore no proper
> unity." Is attention totally inexplicable in rational terms, or
> does it exist through the intent of the man directing it?
The answer to the dichotomy is: Yes...with the exception of the word
totally. Attention is inexplicable in rational terms and it exists
through the intent of the man directing it.
Pragmatism is a method...the method of the experimenter. The
experimenter is nothing without her instruments. To paraphase Lord
Kelvin, knowledge without measurement is of a very meagre kind. Even a
look, a listen, a touch, a smell is a measurement of sorts. The baby
fresh from the womb takes its measure of the world and begins a very
pragmatic journey of learning and understanding...one of uncertainty and
probablities to be sure, but a journey of learning and science (and
some days superstition) none the less.
Let me close with another paraphrase from Lewis, one that illumines much
of Pierce for me: Science is the search for things worth naming!!!! (p
258 of Mind and the World Order)
Thanks for letting me share with you all. I am an engineer in the
automotive industry and have been driven to Pierce through necessity.
The business of industry is very much one of Pragmatism. There is no
question that the Japanese explosion in quality and productivity has its
roots in Pierce.
I have been a reader of the list for some months now. I have
appreciated many of your comments and am sorry to lose Tom Anderson, a
man I never met. But not to end on a somber note, I have enjoyed your
thoughts very much and look forward to further dialogue.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:16:25 -0500
From: piat[…]juno.com (Jim L Piat)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
Message-ID: <19980219.141628.13174.0.piat[…]juno.com>
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 06:41:24 -0600 (CST) sxskag01[…]homer.louisville.edu
(Steven Skaggs) writes:
>Just a small note, here:
>
>Isn't it possible that the act of attention, considered in its
>"smallest
>unit", devoid of reference to before and after, could be considered to
>be
>"outside" of time. That is, there could be a presence that attention
>affords but which is unlinked to sequence. And without sequence there
>is no
>"sense" of time. In this way, the digital sampling of a guitar note at
>44,000 discrete samples every second would involve a sequential
>patterning,
>but an individual sample (one of those 44,000) would simply be a
>value, 0
>or 1, which by itself is not "present in time". In my reading of this
>passage, I think of attention as the smallest unit of "regarding"
>something
>- much like the smallest unit of a sample.
>
Steven,
I'm not prepared to say that a quantized sample of some substance or IT
is outside of time. The notion of a quantized time seems contrary to
Pierce's view of a continuum. But I agree that the reference of Peirce's
attention is that IT which is either outside of time as you suggest or
present in time and space. In other words, what Peirce is discussing as
the object of our attention is not the general "present- time" or the
"present" time-space continuum but some IT or substance which occurs
within (or perhaps outside, as you suggest but I doubt) that continuum
and is the object of our attention. Well perhaps the word object is
itself premature at this point because, as we are to see later, objects
(as fully realized to our minds as coherent conceptions) are constituted
as substance and being with three intermediate conceptions.
Steven, I'm still thinking here and may have changed my mind. I don't
want to erase the above because I'm really not sure now which view Peirce
is meaning to take. Perhaps, as I believe Thomas Riese may be
suggesting, Peirce does mean to suggest that substance is the least
cognizable unit of the space/time or present/attention continuum.
But either which way, I think the main point of the list is to describe
how coherent conceptualization of material reality is possible. I think
this business of reducing "the manifold of sensuous impressions to unity"
is Kantian psychological jargon or code for what today we call in
everyday speech "Knowing or being AWARE of something rather than just
responding to it on a physical level as in the manner of two billiard
balls colliding".
Also, I hope Thomas Riese keeps on keeping on...I don't usually catch him
until the third or fourth time.
Lastly, I really liked the disappearing chair and can't quite get it out
of my mind! First time I've ever even begun to appreciate graphic
design. What do you think of the Arisbe site?
Sorry for the digressions, I'm trying to reduce the # of my messages out
of a recently acquired respect and slowly developing sense for what is
not necessary. And like the old soldier slowly fade away.
Cheers,
Jim Piat
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 05:29:22 -0300
From: niederauer
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: please to cancel (temporary) my address
Message-ID: <34EE9062.5791F3[…]geocities.com>
pls to cancel my address niederauer[…]geocities.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 19:35:24 +0100
From: Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: The Geometry of the Syllogism
Message-ID:
Jim,
seems as if this is my guess at Einstein's algebraic problem:
space-time is "complex valued" -- as much as QM is:
(scalar+matrix)
Something like that, a bit more complicated perhaps;-)
But don't ask me why!
Thomas.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 19:59:10 +0100
From: Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
Message-ID:
Jim, you wrote:
> And like the old soldier slowly fade away.
Oh no, Jim! We need old soldiers like you here!
You have begun it all! Slow reading and such...
I never liked slow reading before!
Thomas:-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:21:39 +0100
From: Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
Message-ID:
Jim,
'Fading away' can have the effect of making things continuous -- in
case they are 'quantized'. Think of pointilistic paintings. You have
then both: continuity and better contrast, greater range of shades
of color. Especially good for night scenes!
Thomas.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:49:09 -0600
From: joseph.ransdell[…]yahoo.com (ransdell, joseph m.)
To:
Subject: A message from Arien Malec about Tom Anderson
Message-ID: <001501bd3d6f$735a3dc0$2ca432ce[…]ransdell.door.net>
Posted for Arien Malec, whom it is good to hear from again.
Joe Ransdell
=======message from and posted for Arien Malec===========
It was with shock and sadness that I learned of the death of Tom
Anderson.
I learned about this in an odd way -- I have formerly been a participant
of
Peirce-l, but over the past year, with a new daughter and an
increasingly
demanding job, I found it difficult even to read the messages of
Peirce-l
Lately, however, I have started to think more about philosophy, in a way
which made me also think about Tom. Due, I believe, to Tom, I started
reading Wittgenstein, and Monk's biography of Wittgenstein. I seem to
remember a number of postings where Tom wrote with appreciation of the
Monk
biography, and I was drawn back to thinking about this list during that
reading. Three days ago, I started to read Peirce-l again, via the
Arisbe
web site, and yesterday I learned of Tom's death.
I searched through the archives trying to find the passages where Tom
talked of the Monk biography. I couldn't find them, but I did find this,
which may be Tom's first posting, on the subject of Peirce and
Wittgenstein:
gopher://gopher.ttu.edu/0R33989-35803-/Pubs/peirce/peirce-l/9522_May_29-
Jun
_4,_1995
I also found this, which is a commentary by Joe Ransdell on the presence
of
the dead in conversation on peirce-l:
gopher://gopher.ttu.edu/0R81723-85135-/Pubs/peirce/peirce-l/9620
I also came across many threads where Tom's voice was (and still is)
vibrant and active. I can often trace what and how I now think back to
many
of these threads. Tom seemed to be interested in many of the same
subjects
as I (abduction, philosophy of science) and brought to them both a
different perspective and a rich and deep history of thought (his own,
and
his thorough knowledge of others'), and I am changed because of him. He
both contributed to Peirce-l on the quality of his postings, taken
separately, and in his commitment to dialog and to the spirit of
Peirce-l.
I never knew him apart from this list, but I have an impression of him
that
I like very much: a person who was drawn by his curiosity, his
intelligence, and his love of the truth to spend evenings, weekends and
odd
hours reading and writing about, among other things, philosophy and
Peirce.
That is, I gathered he was not a professional scholar, but filled what
time
he had with such thoughts as those which he shared with us here. And we
are
all the richer.
There are other people, such as his wife and children, experiencing much
more profound sadness, from whom has been taken much more of Tom, but I
am
saddened to know that Peirce-l will always have a hole in it, not
something
missing, but something not added. At the same time, Tom does have a life
here, in the archives (which I encourage everyone to read through as a
fitting memorial), and in those whom his thought and writing has changed
and will continue to change.
Arien Malec
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:19:33
From: Joseph Ransdell
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: from Mark Weisz on Tom Anderson
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19980219151933.53077768[…]pop.ttu.edu>
This is a message from Mark Weisz which I received Tuesday evening.
Joe Ransdell
=========message from and posted for Mark Weisz==================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:23:25
From: Joseph Ransdell
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: from Mark Weisz on Tom Anderson
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19980219152325.8ac7544c[…]pop.ttu.edu>
(Sorry to send a blank first time around! JMR)
This is a message from Mark Weisz which I received Tuesday evening.
Joe Ransdell
=========message from and posted for Mark Weisz==================
Dear Joe,
I am sending this to .
I am most certainly receiving messages from the Peirce list including
your special note about my addresses. I just tried a quick post to the list
but in the event that I'm still not getting through, let me clarify the
address situation. By the way, feel free to share anything I send directly
to you with the Peirce list people.
My most often used address is:
71333.133[…]compuserve.com
However, Compuserve also allows this alias to the same address:
markw[…]compuserve.com
I have a "backup" address (more permanent actually) at
72057.1566[…]compuserve.com
Under normal circumstances, I check the 71333.133 / markw address daily
and the backup address every other week or so. Things aren't normal right
now, however, because I am in the midst of about a two-month recovery from
retinal surgery. I'm having a bit of trouble reading (the surgery was in my
good reading eye) but I'll probably check my mail every day.
Let me give you as much as I have time for right now. I hope that when I
get on the list that I can respond to specific questions from Tom's friends
there.
I read aloud the note you sent me at the service for Tom. I also read a
note he posted on the list (which I found at the Peirce web site) from May
of 1996. It was a beautiful, and poignant, ceremony, a Buddhist ceremony
presided over by the same priest who married Tom and his wife, Renny.
Before I forget:
Renny Harrigan
78 Windsor Road
Brookline, MA 02146
Renny wants me to share Tom with you. I don't know how to say this any
other way. I also want you Peirce folks to know more about this man, my
friend. Both she and I are so grateful to you for having Tom as a friend
and colleague. To paraphrase your elegant note, Joe, I can hardly
exaggerate the importance of the list in Tom's life and the vitality and
energy it gave him. Tom and I ate lunch about once a week for something
like ten years. He was never more engaged than when he was discussing the
Peirce list, in which he finally found the intellectual peer group he
wanted -- after years of barking up the wrong trees.
To tell you the truth, I was certain I had found the "right" Peirce list
(which turns out, I believe, to be the only Peirce list) when I saw Texas
Tech in the list manager's address. On more than one occassion over soup at
our favorite restaurant, Tom would talk about some "Purse List" (I didn't
get the spelling until later) guy at Texas Tech. Provincial me (from the
big city) I thought all they did at Texas Tech was play football.
In my hometown of Arlington, Massachusetts, ten miles northwest of
Boston, there is a Peirce School, an elementary school. The person it is
named after is almost certainly related to Charles Peirce (or so I gather).
The principal of the school has a Ph.D. and insists that people pronounce
the name correctly, which they do in her presence. Outside of school, the
name rhymes with "fierce."
More later,
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:05:20 -0500
From: Mark Weisz
To: Peirce List
Subject: Test message from Mark Weisz
Message-ID: <199802191705_MC2-3401-15B3[…]compuserve.com>
-----------------------------
Folks,
I'm mailing this test message to peirce-l[…]ttu.edu, which I believe is the
correct address to post to the Peirce List.
Since I am getting your messages in my mailbox, I should get this one as
well.
-Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:37:24 -0400
From: sxskag01[…]homer.louisville.edu (Steven Skaggs)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
Message-ID:
I shall try to make quick responses to the comments of Thomas Riese and Jim
Piat in one message here...
First in regard to Thomas, let me say that reading his posts is inevitably
an experience like watching fireworks: ideas shooting skyward. OOOh, aaaah,
like that. One of the great pleasures of this list is the honor of tapping
into a discussion with people like Thomas for whom ideas become a great
architectural structure, a kind of "Glass Bead Game". Before such remarks,
we Peirce-l readers can be virtually seen nodding our virtual heads in
agreement.
And so, of course, the reply Thomas made to my brief scenario is one that I
want to agree with. I started with the statement (by Jim Piat, I believe)
that "what is present in attention would seem to be present in time as
well". It struck me that, to the contrary, it is possible to be attending
to the present and be "out of time" in the sense that the discrete moment
ignores reference to past or future. (Peirce says that the future is
embedded in the present, but I wish to take the "attended moment" as the
thing and not implications it has for future action).
Thomas replied reminding us that for Peirce, Present:Space:(Separability?)
and Attention:Time:(Repeatability?). And somewhere about here I begin to
feel as if language is mean and inadequate. Is there not an implication of
Will in "attention"? Are not Attention, and Repeatability very different
things? For instance, I can have four discs on a sheet of paper and I can
say the discs are repeated, or that I scarsely paid them attention or that
I attended to only the red one. Further, it seems that what is required to
discriminate a figure from a ground (separability) is precisely that other
thing, attention!
And so on one level I can flow with Thomas's theme and certainly see the
poetry in Peirce, yet as we know, poetry works by metaphor; metaphor less
by denotating than by connoting; connotation is a process whereby the
reader builds the relations. So it seems that there may be many ways to
work Peirce...who comes across as an increasingly PoMo kind of dude.
(pardon the irreverence!)
But these language issues aside, I do like the idea of space/time existing
in an undistinguished state, as we should in this post Einsteinian world.
And per Jim Piat,
whose notes always show a love of ideas and a flexibility to see other's
views which is truly laudable while making strong cases for his own...
>I'm not prepared to say that a quantized sample of some substance or IT
>is outside of time. The notion of a quantized time seems contrary to
>Pierce's view of a continuum. But I agree that the reference of Peirce's
>attention is that IT which is either outside of time as you suggest or
>present in time and space.
I don't really mean that the discrete sample is "outside" time...it could
become a component of time in the way a point is a component of a line.
Just wanted to play with the idea that something might be present in
attention and be a discrete unit of space-time and therefore be more
fundamental than either space or time.
And maybe that is the way to reconcile these ideas with Peirce. The IT is
the undistinguished regard. The discrete take. The regard, the take, the
attention, will afford space and time and the categories are what will
provide the logical vehicle for that move.
Best wishes,
sxs
Steven Skaggs
Associate Professor of Design (502) 852-6794 office
Allen R. Hite Art Institute (502) 897-7716 home
University of Louisville (502) 852-6791 fax
Louisville, Kentucky 40292
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:10:24 -0500
From: Mark Weisz
To: Peirce List
Subject: 2nd Message from M. Weisz
Message-ID: <199802192010_MC2-33FC-A797[…]compuserve.com>
Folks,
Looks like I can post to the Peirce List now. I guess it helps to use the
right address.
I had been sending "replies to sender," namely to peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu.
Evidently that doesn't work. (What is that address anyway?) I imagine they
ended up in what computer science people call the "bit bucket."
Joe, thank you for posting my note to you. I'm not sure how to proceed but
I should certainly thank you all for your notes and concerns for Tom and
his family. I will assume that it's OK if I share them with Renny (Tom's
wife). If that assumption is not correct (in general or with specific
postings) please let me know.
I also assume that it's OK if I browse through your postings to each other
which are not related to Tom (i.e., the ones about Peirce.) I guess all
that brainwashing Tom gave me over lunch all those years paid off a bit,
even for this philosophically challenged individual. Again, if this
assumption isn't correct, please tell me. I don't want to intrude on you.
Now that I'm connected, I'll read all of your notes regarding Tom. If I see
specific questions or concerns, I'll try to answer them. Also, feel free to
address me directly, though you should probably put Tom's name or my name
in the subject line. Although I might be interested in your Peirce related
discussion I'm probably not going to be able to read all of it. So if
there's stuff you specifically want me to see, please make it plain in the
subject or otherwise call my attention to it. You can also send email
directly to me if you wish.
Best regards,
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:39:48 GMT
From: BugDaddy[…]cris.com (BugDaddy)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: 2nd Message from M. Weisz
Message-ID: <34f0f56a.4857547[…]pop3.cris.com>
Mark Weisz wrote:
>Folks,
>Looks like I can post to the Peirce List now. I guess it helps to use the
>right address.
>I had been sending "replies to sender," namely to peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu.
>Evidently that doesn't work. (What is that address anyway?) I imagine they
>ended up in what computer science people call the "bit bucket."
That's the address I use, and I seem to get through. About 99%
of the time when I want to send a message to the list I am
replying to a message I received, so all I need to do is press
reply and my email reader takes care of copying the Reply to:
address to the To: address.
>Joe, thank you for posting my note to you. I'm not sure how to proceed but
>I should certainly thank you all for your notes and concerns for Tom and
>his family. I will assume that it's OK if I share them with Renny (Tom's
>wife). If that assumption is not correct (in general or with specific
>postings) please let me know.
Peirce-L is a public list, with a public archive. Only
subscribers may contribute, but anyone can read what is posted.
You should feel free to use these messages for whatever reason
you please. We all know -- or should know -- that this is a
public list, so I see no problem in your using it.
>I also assume that it's OK if I browse through your postings to each other
>which are not related to Tom (i.e., the ones about Peirce.) I guess all
>that brainwashing Tom gave me over lunch all those years paid off a bit,
>even for this philosophically challenged individual. Again, if this
>assumption isn't correct, please tell me. I don't want to intrude on you.
I certainly hope you will browse through our postings. Again,
it's a public list. Even better yet, become a contributor! As
long as you care to remain with us, I shall be pleased to read
your thoughts.
>Now that I'm connected, I'll read all of your notes regarding Tom. If I see
>specific questions or concerns, I'll try to answer them. Also, feel free to
>address me directly, though you should probably put Tom's name or my name
>in the subject line. Although I might be interested in your Peirce related
>discussion I'm probably not going to be able to read all of it. So if
>there's stuff you specifically want me to see, please make it plain in the
>subject or otherwise call my attention to it. You can also send email
>directly to me if you wish.
I would like to know who Tom was. I looked back over some of his
posts and see that he didn't seem to use a signature file. I
checked at Arisbe and couldn't see that he had a web page.
Someone said he was buried at Cambridge, Massachusetts, so I
presume he taught at one of the schools there, but I don't know
which. I suppose I could figure out a bit more about him by
reading over several hundred messages, but honestly don't have
the time.
-----------------------------------
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials diversity,
in all things charity"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
William Overcamp
-----------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:50:34 GMT
From: BugDaddy[…]cris.com (BugDaddy)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: The New List (Paragraph 3)
Message-ID: <34ece420.430694[…]pop3.cris.com>
THE PARSON FAMILY wrote:
>As Bug Daddy points out
>> I sense a bit of ambiguity here: "That universal conception
>> which is nearest to sense is that of the present, in general.
>> This is a conception, because it is universal." For there are
>> two meanings that can be applied here. On the one hand, we have
>> a universal conception of the present in general. On the other
>> hand we have a particular conception, which is "nearest to
>> sense," being identical to the "manifold of sensuous
>> impressions," which we saw in paragraph one. Is Peirce
>> deliberately combining these fundamentally different conceptions?
>I would say yes. There has been a tension between Idealists and
>Realists trying to reconcile the possibility of knowing reality with
>its independence of mind and various attempts to escape the relativity
>of knowledge. C. I. Lewis points out that these are false alternatives.
> There is no contradiction between the relativity of knowledge and the
>indepedence of its object. He states:
>"If the real object can be known at all, it can be known only in its
>relation to a mind..."
>True pragmatism begins with the acceptance of uncertainty...that our
>empirical knowledge is probable only. More strongly, empirical
>knowledge begins and ends with our ability to predict. There is no
>present experience that comes without the baggage of the past. We
>trundle out our filters even as the chaos of the givens piles in upon
>us.
Yes. I can accept a certain amount of uncertainty. But it's
really not clear to me whether Peirce was aware of the ambiguity
involved. He certainly doesn't give any hint that he was. I
would feel better about it if he simply said what he was about.
But beyond that, I do not see how paragraph 3 advances his
program. The equation of sense with substance is certainly not
necessary for the scheme of categories which he developed.
A few simple distinctions would have enabled him to avoid what
seems to me to be the questionable nature of this equation.
>More Pierce and comment by Bug Daddy:
>> "But as the act of attention has no connotation at all, but is
>> the pure denotative power of the mind....and therefore no proper
>> unity." Is attention totally inexplicable in rational terms, or
>> does it exist through the intent of the man directing it?
>The answer to the dichotomy is: Yes...with the exception of the word
>totally. Attention is inexplicable in rational terms and it exists
>through the intent of the man directing it.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, he is speaking in absolute terms.
The dichotomy which he has set up makes it difficult to accept a
middle position.
>Pragmatism is a method...the method of the experimenter. The
>experimenter is nothing without her instruments. To paraphase Lord
>Kelvin, knowledge without measurement is of a very meagre kind. Even a
>look, a listen, a touch, a smell is a measurement of sorts. The baby
>fresh from the womb takes its measure of the world and begins a very
>pragmatic journey of learning and understanding...one of uncertainty and
>probablities to be sure, but a journey of learning and science (and
>some days superstition) none the less.
Knowledge without measurement is essential to knowing the
categories. For the categories are prior to logic itself, to say
nothing of mathematics. This is the main problem we face:
describing categories which we cannot define, describing what is
so subtle that it escapes our every attempt to hem it in.
>Let me close with another paraphrase from Lewis, one that illumines much
>of Pierce for me: Science is the search for things worth naming!!!! (p
>258 of Mind and the World Order)
>Thanks for letting me share with you all. I am an engineer in the
>automotive industry and have been driven to Pierce through necessity.
>The business of industry is very much one of Pragmatism. There is no
>question that the Japanese explosion in quality and productivity has its
>roots in Pierce.
I am a computer programmer, for what it's worth.
>I have been a reader of the list for some months now. I have
>appreciated many of your comments and am sorry to lose Tom Anderson, a
>man I never met. But not to end on a somber note, I have enjoyed your
>thoughts very much and look forward to further dialogue.
Tom will be missed.
-----------------------------------
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials diversity,
in all things charity"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
William Overcamp
-----------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:43:00 GMT
From: BugDaddy[…]cris.com (BugDaddy)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
Message-ID: <34f30524.8884124[…]pop3.cris.com>
sxskag01[…]homer.louisville.edu (Steven Skaggs) wrote:
>I don't really mean that the discrete sample is "outside" time...it could
>become a component of time in the way a point is a component of a line.
>Just wanted to play with the idea that something might be present in
>attention and be a discrete unit of space-time and therefore be more
>fundamental than either space or time.
Porphyry makes the distinction between time and the *when.* As
he reads Aristotle, time belongs to the category of quantity, but
the *when* is a category to itself.
"Q. Three categories still remain, the category of when, the
category of where and the category of having. It is clear that
Aristotle has said nothing about them, but what can you say about
them?
"A. What else than that just as a relative is not one of the
things that is considered to exist primarily, but is something
that supervenes on these, as if it were an offshoot of it, so
too, *when* and *where* are parasitic upon quantity and time and
place as subjects. For if place and time, which are quantities,
do not exist, *where* and *when* cannot exist either. However,
time is not identical with *when* nor place with *where* nor
*where* with place, but when place already exists then..." [*On
Aristotle's Categories* 142... Unfortunately the text is
incomplete and breaks off in mid sentence.]
-----------------------------------
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials diversity,
in all things charity"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
-----------------------------------
William Overcamp
-----------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:15:16 -0600
From: joseph.ransdell[…]yahoo.com (ransdell, joseph m.)
To: peirce-l
Subject: A new liberation movement?
Message-ID: <000b01bd3dbe$8913d1e0$728827d1[…]ransdell.door.net>
Blame this on Arien Malec, but he reminded me of and I am reproducing
below a message of mine from some time back -- May 15, 1996 -- that I
find so persuasive that I cannot keep from reincarnating it here once
again.
==========content of message to PEIRCE-L May 15, 1996==============
From: Joseph Ransdell or <>
Department of Philosophy, Texas Tech University, Lubbock TX 79409
Area Code 806: 742-3158 office 797-2592 home 742-0730 fax
ARISBE: Peirce Telecommunity website - http://members.door.net/arisbe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:06:41 +0100
From: Thomas.Riese[…]t-online.de (Thomas Riese)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: New List (paragraphs 2 and 3)
Message-ID:
To Steven Skaggs:
Steven, I think in the logical order of the text of the New List
language here is more created than used, it is still before the
perceptible onset of TRI-VIALIZATION. The poetic stage, so to speak.
The first proposition isn't even yet invented. So I wouldn't insist a
second on "repeatability"/"separability". It's just that I am biased
toward the natural sciences and think that the importance of the New
List for the natural sciences cannot be overestimated (they sometimes
use 'flavors' and such things, by the way;-))
I am constantly reminded of the paper Howard Callaway recently sent to
me "Does language determine our scientific ideas?" (and its virtual
dual twin). This connection seems to me to be highly important.
I very much like what Mark Parson recently said and the ideas around
it: "Science is the search for things worth naming!" !
In mathematics, if we regard it as a language, we have this unique
(and highly 'paradoxical', if one comes to think about it) "concrete
poesia". Highly self-controlled psychosis:-) And it is at the same
time precise and we regard it as a merit if a mathematical structure
has as many interpretations as possible -- even outside of itself!
I spontaneously wanted to associate 'will' with self-control and not
so much with spontaneous denotation:-) But when I come to think about
it, ..., yes, being partly an actor, I want action!
Kind regards,
Thomas.
P.S. The flowers you gave me are a firework, Steven! Thanks;-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:24:05 -0500
From: piat[…]juno.com (Jim L Piat)
To: peirce-l[…]ttacs6.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: A new liberation movement?
Message-ID: <19980220.102406.9230.0.piat[…]juno.com>
Joe,
Your comments on the lasting participation of the dead set me to
wondering on this again. My approach is to ask in what way the dead do
not participate in our ongoing lives. If we think of ourselves as nodes
(signs) in a complex web of interactions what is the effect of dead node?
What is a dead node? Well, what's a live node? Perhaps every node can
only be defined in terms of its effect on the whole system. That is, how
is the system altered if that node is removed. But, once a communication
patterned has been introduced can it's effects ever be totally removed
from the system? Perhaps the lasting legacy of some temporary nodes is
to create "strange attractors" in the long term patterns of interaction.
Eddies, whirligigs, recursive patterns of inspiration and renewal for all
who venture near. I'm reminded of an old expression - it's the singer
not the song. Or perhaps the expression is - the singer or the song? In
any case, I think we know the answer- It's the music. All together now,
One...
Jim Piat
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:48:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Dennis Bradley Knepp
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Luck Received!!!
Message-ID:
I feel that I am sending nothing but empty promises. This weekend
is the "Prospective Student Weekend" where we fly in the potential new
grad students for interviews and parties. So, my free time has been
completely consumed by this and will be for the next few days. Thus, no
intelligent response from me for a while more.
Geeez! After this build-up I better have something worthwhile to
say! The pressure, the pressure!
--Dennis Knepp, Washington University in St. Louis
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, BugDaddy wrote:
> Dennis Bradley Knepp wrote:
>
> >Now I need to read the "New List" comments that I have
> >been saving so that I can give some sort of intelligent response.
>
> I eagerly await your response.
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> "In essentials unity, in nonessentials diversity,
> in all things charity"
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Life is a miracle waiting to happen.
> http://www.cris.com/~bugdaddy/life.htm
> -----------------------------------
> William Overcamp
> -----------------------------------
>
------------------------------
|
