[Inquiry] Re: Kaina Stoicheia -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

KS.  Discussion Note 6

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JA = Jon Awbrey
JP = Jim Piat

Re: KS-DIS 5.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/003298.html
In: KS-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/thread.html#3272

Supplying a missing article:

JA: What we cannot provide so easily is a definition of a 'good' definition,
    because that is more properly an applied, empirical, pragmatic matter,
    not just a logical or a mathematical question.  Here we are "reduced"
    to "holism", whereby only models as a whole of theories as a whole
    can be judged by their empirical fertility and logical integrity.

Jim, Peirce List,

Replies interspersed.

JP: I don't mean to sound so confrontational or abrupt.  Fact is I seem to recall
    you have already posted (maybe a number of times) some of what you felt were
    Peirce's most useful sign definitions.  So what I'm really trying to ask is
    how can we separate our sign selection criteria from our preconceptions of
    what a sign is.  My concern is that our definitions may beg the questions
    we hope they will help us answer.  Just as every question presupposes an
    assertion that is being doubted, it seems to me that every definition
    presupposes a question that is being answered.

I just now notice that I had posted one at the top of this discussion thread,
and had already forgotten it, partly because I did not get my copy back from
the Peirce List -- I sure hope this isn't what made Soren so irate that time --
anyway here's a link to an archive copy:

KS-DIS 1.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/003272.html

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, where the emphasis is meant to be
when you say:  "how can we separate our sign selection criteria from our
preconceptions of what a sign is".  If by "begging the question" you are
saying that a definition evades the question by assuming what's supposed
to be proved, I don't see how that is, as definitions aren't supposed to
prove anything, only supply a potential clarification of one thing meant
by a term.  But if you are emphasizing the difference between unexamined
preconception and clarifying "logical analysis of a predicate in general
terms", in Peirce's phrase, then that again is just what a definition is
supposed to be doing.

JP: Sitting here writing this, Jon, I've come up with what is perhaps a more helpful
    question for me -- would you explain a bit more (in so far as possible in layman's
    terms for me) why you are trying to translate Peirce's definitions into some sort
    of graphic formalization.  I don't really understand your goal.  I guess in part
    what I don't understand is what is meant by a formal definition if in fact that
    is part of your goal.  I realize you are putting a lot of care into what you
    are doing and are trying to move in careful well considered small steps.
    That much I think I understand and appreciate.  But I don't understand
    your methodological goal.  My sense is you are attempting some sort
    of formalization but I don't really know what constitutes a formal
    definition -- what it achieves and what it avoids.  I'm not trying
    to trap you into some premature formulations -- I just want to get
    a better understanding in very informal terms for starters of what
    your general methodological goal is so that maybe I can better
    understand the steps you are taking.  Even off line if you
    don't want to be held accountable for some very quick and
    dirty, off hand, rough translation of your methodological
    goals designed solely for a friend who is largely clueless.

For this one I will have to hunt up that old thinking cap and get back to you ...

Jon Awbrey

P.S.  I don't know why the Internet has been so funky the
last couple of weeks -- Sue said there was some kind of
major D.O.S. attack that had their servers bogged down
for a while, or maybe it's just the traffic from the
<insert your denominational festivity>'s holiday
online shopping frenzy -- but if I don't answer
you or anybody for a day or so I won't mind if
you send me a copy by my own email address.

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o