Discussion of the philosophy of Charles Peirce

Gary Richmond | 3 Dec 2008 06:02

A "chemical-like" synthesis from elemental forms.

Jerry, list

I'm sure you won't mind my copying to the list these responses to a part 
of your recent off-list messages to me. Your messages provided such an 
intriguing and, I would maintain, important group of reflections and 
questions that I thought I'd respond to them more generally.

Jerry Chandler wrote (in part):
> Your recent post fascinated me - your effort to do a "chemical-like" 
> synthesis from elemental forms.
It is true that I've been hugely interested in this " 'chemical-like' 
synthesis from elemental forms" when I first discerned something like it 
in Peirce's writings, peaking, I believe, in the last two decades of the 
19th century, while he seems rather frequently to have made chemical 
analogies throughout his career, understandably since he was exceedingly 
well-trained in the chemistry of he time. For me this reaches something 
of a peak in his work during the last decade and a half of the 19th century.

Peirce's "valency theory" was first diagrammatically explicated by 
Kenneth Laine Ketner (e.g., /A Thief of Peirce: The Letters of Kenneth 
Laine Ketner and Walker Percy)/. In laying bare the skeletal 
(architectural) form of this valency theory, Ketner reveals valency 
theory (including the Reduction Thesis) to be analytically a matter of 
what Peirce called "the simplest mathematics." But, and my point here is 
that while it is suggested by chemistry, it is first experienced 
(existentially confirmed) in phenomenology, then employed most 
generously in logic as semeiotic, and, finally, extrapolated backwards, 
as it were, to mathematics.

Indeed, Jerry, I am more and more beginning to see that I could never

(Continue reading)

headers

Gary Richmond | 6 Dec 2008 02:25

The philosophical challenge of 2009, was, A "chemical-like" synthesis from elemental forms.

Jerry, list,

Farewell (for a time) kind list. When one finds oneself the only 
respondent to his own message, you know it's probably time to "take a 
break". But, before I do that, I unfortunately have to correct what 
might be perceived as an error in dating a major development in Peirce's 
thinking.

But first, Jerry, I want to apologize to you for taking up your good 
questions here when you'd addressed them to me off-list. I simply  found 
them so interesting that I couldn't restrain myself. Anyhow, here's the 
bad news: I have to correct my error. More than any other particularly 
noxious thing that I've done here recently, this 'slip' reminds me that 
I ought to reflect on what I write here before posting, rather than 
writing -> posting.

Thus, the good news:  Because I've been posting way too much, and now 
I'm currently caught up with the end of the college term; after which 
I'll be visiting family over the holidays;  and, then, flying almost 
immediately  to Prague around the New Year (especially, it is hoped, to 
soak up some of the bright spirit of Mozart-- a city in which he 
experienced *only* success), because of all that, I promise that this is 
truly going to be my last peirce-l post until well after the New Year 
(although, off-list I'd be pleased to chat briefly with any possible 
interlocutors who might want to discuss any of the topics we've been 
discussing, as I am keenly interested in all the thinking in all these 
thread).

Anyhow, to the error: Jerry, off-list you asked:
>

(Continue reading)

headers

Joseph Ransdell | 8 Dec 2008 17:56

RE: The philosophical challenge of 2009, was, A "chemical-like" synthesis from elemental forms.

Dear Gary:

It would be difficult to persuade me that you have been posting too much,
though you may be expecting too much by way of responsiveness.  People often
just have too much to do at certain times to be responsive regardless of
what interest they are taking in what is being posted.  It is impossible to
form a reasonable hypothesis about what is actually going on among the
people who are not responding (except of course in extraordinary cases where
something very extreme is being said, as rarely ever occurs here).  People
who usually respond get busy and run out of time now and again, and there
are many people who assiduously follow everything avidly but do so only as
spectators, as is evident to me from off-list messages I get from people who
prefer not to participate overtly.  

     Of course, you might have good reason otherwise to distance yourself
for a while in order to do justice to other things in your life, Gary, as I
have found it necessary to do myself for the last couple of months.
Fortunately, the forum is self-regulating and doesn't really require my
attention, due in no small measure to your own scrupulousness as well as
that of others on the list in keeping things on an even keel when, as
occasionally happens, the passion that often accompanies spontaneous
expression when one is thinking well leads to unintended excess. So don't
hesitate to break your vow to refrain from contributing for a while if
something tempts you to the contrary. It is your absence rather than your
presence that people are likely to be disturbed about!

Joe 

Joseph Ransdell 
ransdell <at> cspeirce.com

(Continue reading)

headers

Gary Richmond | 9 Dec 2008 01:30

Re: The philosophical challenge of 2009, was, A "chemical-like" synthesis from elemental forms.

Dear Joe,

I will break my vow not to post until the new year in order to answer 
your thoughtful and supportive message.

It is possible that you are quite correct that I "may be expecting too 
much by way of responsiveness," at least to my recent posts. Indeed, a 
few years ago I recall myself responding to someone who thought the list 
had "died" by arguing, not unlike you just did--although I think you 
phrased it exceedingly well, while adding a new bit of information which 
only you as List Manger could know--that there are many reasons, such as 
those involving times of great or unexpected busyness, why folk can't 
actively participate on the list even as they might want to. You wrote:
> JR:It is impossible to form a reasonable hypothesis about what is actually going on among the people who
are not responding (except of course in extraordinary cases where something very extreme is being said,
as rarely ever occurs here).  People who usually respond get busy and run out of time now and again, and there
are many people who assiduously follow everything avidly but do so only as spectators, as is evident to me
from off-list messages I get from people who prefer not to participate overtly.  
The remarks in your second paragraph were equally on target. The list is 
clearly "self-regulating" and, as you commented, there are several of us 
here who at least try to be 'scrupulous' "in keeping things on an even 
keel" when they seem to getting out of kilter. I do, however, rue those 
times when my responses to others have involved "unintended excess." 
But, as you reminded me many years ago, I am not alone here in 
occasionally getting hot headed in response to another's comments. In 
all such cases, I believe, I have apologized for my untoward behavior.

Finally, you commented:
> JR:It is your absence rather than your
> presence that people are likely to be disturbed about!

(Continue reading)