Re: What Peirce Preserves

Re: Irving H. Anellis, et al.
At: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8116

Peircers,

Looking back from this moment, I think I see things a little differently.
The critical question is whether our theoretical description of inquiry
gives us a picture that is true to life, preserving the life of inquiry
and serving to guide it on its way, or whether it "murders to dissect",
leaving us with nothing but a Humpty Dumpty hodge-podge of false idols
and torn and twisted bits of maps that mislead the quest at every turn.

There is a natural semantics that informs mathematical inquiry.
It permeates the actual practice even of those who declare for
some variety of nominal faith in their idle off-hours.  Peirce
is unique in his ability to articulate the full dimensionality
of mathematical meaning, but echoes of his soundings keep this
core sense reverberating, however muted, throughout pragmatism.

If I sift the traditions of theoretical reflection on mathematics
according to how well their theoretical images manage to preserve
this natural stance on mathematical meaning, I would tend to sort
Frege more in a class with Boole, De Morgan, Peirce, and Schröder,
since I have the sense when I read them that they are all talking
like mathematicians, not like people who are alien to mathematics.

Regards,

Jon

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/