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

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 23

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

Joe, Peirce List,

I continue with your remarks ...

JR: Since Short's understanding -- which I regard as a radical
    misunderstanding -- is held by others as well whose opinions
    tend to carry some considerable weight with those interested
    in Peirce, what is at issue in this disagreement is no trivial
    matter, and it is important to be able to convey a reasonably
    clear idea to any interested parties of what that disagreement
    is, and to do so by describing it as a question about whether
    the function of a symbol involves the function of an icon
    conveys an understanding of what the theoretical problem
    is which is informative enough and determinate enough to
    make it possible for critical discussion to begin from
    that as a basis, while leaving the answer to the
    question -- which would be a more exact and
    articulate description of their relationship --
    undetermined in advance.

I agree that the first elements of Peirce's theory of sign relations are yet
to be widely understood.  First among firsts, not to be categorical about it,
would have to be the consequences of irreducible 3-adicity, consequences that
fail to be duly cognized in the actual thinking even of those who will readily
give a modicum of lip-service to the principle.  Not to bring in politics again.

JR: Your idea that what is wanted is to start from "a clear and express
    definition" of that relationship exhibits, in my opinion, a failure
    on your part to understand the philosophical problem at all, amounting
    in effect -- though not in intent, I assume -- to a decision in advance
    to shut the question down by use of a predetermined answer to it in the
    very formulation of it, whether you realize that is what you are wanting
    to do or not.

I am quite accustomed to the form of reasoning
that reasons toward a definition, but whether
you are coming or going you have to be able
to know one when you see it.

Jon Awbrey

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