[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 21

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 19.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/003173.html
In: FOLG-DIS.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/thread.html#3167

In part:

JA: Thanks for the correction and the dictionary glosses --
    I will add the latter to the archive stacks.  They do,
    as you might expect, range over all the usual senses of
    the ordinary English word "involve", and there just about
    any old lexicon would do the trick, but it's certainly fun
    to read all the quotations that Peirce excavated.  We still
    have the task of choosing the meanings that fit the present
    context.  I will have to disagree about the importance of
    definitions, though, as I find that red herrings thrive
    best in bodies of whatever that lac them.

JR replies:

JR: Although I think it can be very important at times to understand exactly what
    Peirce meant by certain words -- e.g. "quality" and "virtue", to take a couple
    of them that figure prominently in the problematics of the topic at issue that
    also appear in the Century dictionary, I don't think it is a matter of much
    importance as regards what, exactly, Peirce might have meant by "involves"
    in connection with this issue (I mean the question about the symbol-icon
    relation).  Why?  Because contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, he
    did not himself make much use at all of the word in the many passages on
    that topic when characterizing their relationship -- in fact I found only
    a couple of places where he used "involve" in that particular way -- which
    is described by him in a variety of ways that nevertheless make clear that
    he conceived the function -- the functionING -- of the symbol as such as
    not occurring apart from the functioning of an icon associated with it,
    and whether or not that is so is what is in question, as far as I am 
    concerned, at least.

Joe, Peirce List,

As I've already stated, I did not at first think the word "involve"
was all that important, as I took it to be referring to a relation
that I thought was already well enough defined.  But that was then --
this is now -- and the intervening discussion has led me to believe
that vagaries about the notion of involvement that is being invoked
here may be one source of confusion.  So I'll keep looking into it.
Shifting the burden onto "associated", "concurrent", "functioning",
and so on, is all the same to me, as then we have to clarify those.

Getting late, so I'll call it a day ...

Jon Awbrey

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