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

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 5

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 4.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003138.html
In: FOLG-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3135

Joe, Peirce List,

JR: Second, we find you once again mischaracterizing the question at issue as
    regards the "pure symbol" and its relation to icons and indices as being
    a matter of the structural relation of a whole to its parts, as distinct
    from being the claim that the function of the symbol -- that which it
    does as such -- essentially involves the functioning of icons (and in
    the case of "complete" symbols the functioning of indices as well).
    Or at least I am supposing that this is what you are getting at
    in talking about the "genuine symbol" as not involving icons
    and indices as parts of it.

The subject matter of this prospectus, which is both before and after all
very much a "concern to understand the philosophical implications and use
in practice of Peirce's graphical logic", and not a "proposed replacement"
for that project in progress, is rather larger than its incidental-or-not
application to the question of what Peirce meant by "pure symbols", but
it seemed like a timely and philosophically interesting fruit to pick
in passing.  Whether I was ripe to do that now only time will tell.

The apparent contradictions between what Peirce says in various places
have been noted, and I'm keeping all of the affected texts near at hand,
but it's 'his' apparent contradictions and not ours, though we may choose
our own ways of resolving them.  For my part, I tend to suspect the usual
discrepancies that arise between the different levels of approximation that
are appropriate to different contexts of discussion, and in reconciling them
I tend to give preference to the concepts that have the clearest definitions,
throwing a harsher light on those that are left equivocal or remain undefined.
That makes the word "involve" the principal suspect in my own investtigation.
I have my hopes that grilling it under the glare of the pragmatic maxim will
eventually crack the case.  All in good time.

One thing that we have to note is that there are two orders
of part/whole hierarchies involved, there are the parts and
wholes of the object domain, the universe of discourse, and
there are the parts and wholes of the semiotic or syntactic
domains, what all gets inscripted on the sheet of assertion.
No matter how iconic one thinks the latter of the former is,
one has to sift in mind the role of an object from the role
of a sign.

Of course, in one sense or another everything that is
"essentially involves" everything else that is, but I
am not seeking that brand of indefeasible explanation.

Jon Awbrey

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