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

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 12

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 5.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003139.html
In: FOLG-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3135

Joe, Peirce List,

Comments interspersed ...

JA: 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.

JR: I thought it was your job to tell us by giving persuasive reasons.

Persuasion is relative to the state of information
and the desire to be informed of the interpreter.
I am trying to tweak one and pique the other.

JA: 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.

JR: Perhaps in the meantime you might reflect on the implication of the maxim
    itself, which is that supposed symbols are not symbols at all apart from
    such relationships as they have with indices of where their objects are
    to be found and icons of their perceptual properties.

I don't usually think of the
pragmatic maxim that way,
but I will think on it.

Jon Awbrey

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