Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

ONT Re: Differential Logic



Jon,

There appears to be a contradiction in your note on "Obstacles to Applying
the Pragmatic Maxim." On the one hand you write that the purpose of the
maxim  
. . .would be the clarification of concepts. . .to the point where their inherent senses. . would be rendered manifest to all and sundry interpreters.
but then you write that the maxim:
promises no. . .finality of unindexed sense, but ties what you conceive to you.
(emphasis added in both quotation) Comment?

Gary

Jon Awbrey wrote:
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Note 17

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

| Consider what effects that might 'conceivably'
| have practical bearings you 'conceive' the
| objects of your 'conception' to have. Then,
| your 'conception' of those effects is the
| whole of your 'conception' of the object.
|
| Charles Sanders Peirce,
| "Maxim of Pragmaticism", CP 5.438.

There a big reasons and little reasons for caring about this humble example.
The little reasons we find all under our feet. One big reason I can now
quite blazonly enounce in the fashion of this not so subtle subtitle:

Obstacles to Applying the Pragmatic Maxim

No sooner do you get a good idea and try to apply it
than you find that a motley array of obstacles arise.

It seems as if I am constant ly lamenting the fact these days that people,
and even admitted Peircean persons, do not in practice more consistently
apply the maxim of pragmatism to the purpose for which it is purportedly
intended by its author. That would be the clarification of concepts, or
intellectual symbols, to the point where their inherent senses, or their
lacks thereof, would be rendered manifest to all and sundry interpreters.

There are big obstacles and little obstacles to applying the pragmatic maxim.
In good subgoaling fashion, I will merely mention a few of the bigger blocks,
as if in passing, and then get down to the devilish details that immediately
obstruct our way.

Obstacle 1. People do not always read the instructions very carefully.
There is a tendency in readers of particular prior persuasions to blow
the problem all out of proportion, to think that the maxim is meant to
reveal the absolutely positive and the totally unique meaning of e very
preconception to which they might deign or elect to apply it. Reading
the maxim with an even minimal attention, you can see that it promises
no such finality of unindexed sense, but ties what you conceive to you.
I have lately come to wonder at the tenacity of this misinterpretation.
Perhaps people reckon that nothing less would be worth their attention.
I am not sure. I can only say the achievement of more modest goals is
the sort of thing on which our daily life depends, and there can be no
final end to inquiry nor any ultimate community without a continuation
of life, and that means life on a day to day basis. All of which only
brings me back to the point of persisting with local meantime examples,
because if we can't apply the maxim there, we can't apply it anywhere.

And now I need to go weed my garden for a while ...

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~ ~~¤