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

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 33

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

Peirce List,

Though I plan to put off discussing it until we get down to last resorts --
just so it doesn't slide altogther into obliviscence, I will note it now --
there is one more bit of slippage that appears between these two slogans:

| S_1.  There are symbols that do not involve either icons or indices in any manner.
|
| S_2.  Every symbol refers more or less indirectly to an icon and through an index.

I'm referring to the moderating phrase "more or less indirectly" (MOLI),
which could be taken measurably to soften the friction between the pair.
Indeed, a mollifying hedge of that sort might even be lubricious enough
to eliminate the conflict altogether.  As matter of fact, there are not
just a few well-known situations where a modulating phrase of this kind
serves just that function.

For example, it's well known that Peirce's concept of determination is far from
being the strictest sort of what you might call "deterministic" determination,
but is instead a "determination in measure" (DIM).  But any determination in
measure has its corresponding "measure of determination" (MOD), and it is
often the case that we use these notions in such a maximally general way
that we allow ourselves to speak of a MOD of 0, when we might otherwise
speak of "utter indetermination".

Now, I realize that some will consider this to be an "easy out",
but there are in the run up to S_2 a number of suggestions that
a strategic generalization of this sort might actually have had
a place in Peirce's mind.  Still, I will leave it as is for now.

Jon Awbrey

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