[Inquiry] Re: Utter Indetermination -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

UI.  Discussion Note 3

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
KM = Kirsti Määttänen

Re: UI-DIS 2.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003096.html
In: UI-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3092

Kirsti, Peirce List,

Comments interspersed below:

JA: Good questions. I think the answer to the first has to be 
    that the SA is a symbol, only an utterly indeterminate one. 

KM: Well, as Peirce wrote, symbols GROW, so perhaps one should call SA 
    a seed of a symbol. Or, rather, a flower bed awaiting for the seeds 
    of a symbol. 

JA: Sure, but it's still a symbol in its own right, or at least it's clear 
    from reading the relevant passages of the "Kaina Stocheia"/"New Elements" 
    that Peirce regarded these generic brands of inchoate states, for instance, 
    the SA or the TR, to be symbols on a par with any others. 

JA: Here again are the links to the longer and shorter excerpts from the 
    finale of the KS/NE essay. This is an important work, and it would 
    not hurt us one bit to read the whole thing over very carefully. 

    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-August/002926.html 
    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003091.html 

JA: No doubt it well worth careful reading. But right now I'll just
    have to leave it for later.  Thanks for bringing it up, anyway. 

KM: And yes, an utterly (although not totally) indeterminate one. 
    But it is no only a question of determination-indermination, 
    but of vagueness as well. 

JA: Peirce is sometimes precise in his technical distinction between 
    general and vague, and sometimes not ...

KM: I'm wondering why you call the distinction a TECHNICAL one (as you often do)?
    To my mind it is a conceptual distinction, imbedded in Peirce's concept of time.

That's just a way of marking them as "terms of art"
whose technical senses may be circumscribed within
a particular techne, and probably have little hope
of being related to commeon usage.

JA: as a general rule I think that we can regard
    "indeterminate" as the most general concept
    of the three, reading "general" as meaning
    "extensively undetermined" and "vague" as
    meaning "intensively undetermined".

KM: Well, rather as a more SPECIFIC rule, I'd think.  To my mind
    the three concepts -- vague, general, indetermined -- are all
    more general than extension/intension distinction, which may
    (or may not) be basic from the more limited scope of analysis
    of truth values of assertions.

I did labor over that statement -- it was strange how many combinations of
adjectives and substantives combined to give almost the opposite senses from
what I had intended -- and so I continued to labor over it late into the night.
Here is my last effort:

Peirce is sometimes precise in his technical distinction between
general and vague, and sometimes not -- as a general rule I think
that we can regard "indeterminate" as the most general concept of
the three, regarding "general" as "to be determined in extension"
and "vague" as "to be determined in comprehension".

KM: Why would "indeterminate" be the most general concept
    of the three, in general?  Does Peirce state anything
    to support this idea?

Because it's the common adjective that modifies the two modes,
'in extension' and 'in comprehension', respectively, the "TBD"
in the phrases "TBD in extension" and "TBD in comprehension".
I do remember collecting a whole passel of quotations two or
three years ago, so it would probably be easy to hunt em up.

KM: To my mind the adequate way to approach the three concepts
    is take the categories as a methodical starting point, and
    ask:  Do these three form a triad?  If so, how?

KM: To me the answer seems clear:

    Vagueness -- Firstness,

    Determination -- Secondness, and

    Generality -- Thirdness.

    So the relation of vagueness and determination is (or becomes) mediated
    by generality.  It is only within the triad involved in the second aspect,
    that of determination, that your distinction "extensively undetermined",
    "intensively undetermined" seems to me to apply as you claim. -- The general
    methodic rule being:  every angle of a triad involves a triad -- which then
    involves a triad and so forth.  And what is involved may be evolved, some time.
    What needs to be evolved depends on the questions posed.

I will think on that, perhaps in the process of hunting up some pertinent data.
Overall, I think we need to keep in mind the purposes of the essays under view.

Jon Awbrey

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