ONT Re: Differential Logic A -- Discussion

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

DLOG A.  Discussion Note 4

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

Re: DLOG A10.  http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05373.html

Richard,

In trying to work through this version of the Pragmatic Maxim one more time,
I begin to understand another one of those problems that most of us have in
reading Peirce.  As a person who read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' up,
down, sideways, and, yes, even forward at the age of 13, Peirce sometimes
writes as if everybody else has too.  Whereas a person like me, who has
made two stabs at the buch a decade apart, is still only two thirds of
the way through it.  Still, I can dimly grasp that many of the things
Peirce doesn't say in his statement he doesn't say because he thinks
that Kant already painted the background in illustratively enough.

One of the bits of fading scenery that I just now noticed is a distinctive
ambiguity of force or mood in the use of any maxim for reflective critique,
that is, with the aim to bring deliberate reflection to train on a present
condition but also to promote a beneficial change of that condition in the
future, and thus the effective value of a maxim compounds both descriptive
and normative elements.

In the present case, the Pragmatic Maxim says something about how to recognize
our present concept of an object when we see it, but also how to improve on it.

Putting those generalities back in the background,
though not entirely wishing to forget them, I'll
try once again to get down to details next time.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o