[Inquiry] Re: Questions Involving Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

QUIPS.  Discussion Note 20

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

JR = Joe Ransdell

JR: Jon, I keep forgetting.  How is it that you explain away Peirce's
    preference for graphical logic because of its highly iconic character?

Joe,

Why would I explain it away, since it's also my preference?
I celebrate it, and have devoted a goodly chunk of my time
on this earthly sphere to the care and gardening of many
splintered species of logical graphs.  But I kant imagine
that anyone here will accede to this icon of mental action:

   I like X.
   ---------
   X is all.

So it's merely a matter of knowing the properties of one's medium,
how flat it can be hammered, how thin it can be drawn, and when
it's able and bound to break.  With all due appreciation for
Peirce's genres of logical graphs, they are not by far the
most iconic in the gallery.  Euler-Venn diagrams are far
more iconic of their subject matter, and this is where
their greatest limitation lies, at least, for the sake
of critters who do not visualize configures to well
beyond the pale of 7 plus or minus 2 dimensions.
It is precisely the symbolic durabilities of
Peirce's logical graphs that gives them the
extra oomph they have.  But no language is
perfect, and Peirce's graphical logics
have many points where they could be
improved, according to standards
that he himself enunciated and
exhibited in his progression.

Jon Awbrey

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