I've puzzled over this because CSP seems almost dogmatic on the point of doubt being the aegis not merely of inquiry but thought itself. First, can there not be other prods to thought that are at least as effective? Secondly, how much does our own mental process affect our thinking. I would hazard a guess that we are all editors and snippers and pasters of squibs of thought and memory that are welling up near the surface of consciousness. If we consciously think, devoting time to do so, we have already eliminated doubt as the sole cause of it. All manner if initiations. All manner of resolutions. Somehow I infer that CSP is close to a sort of brain mechanism notion. I have no sense that much can be gained from assuming that doubt is the sole origin of what takes place to give birth to belief. Finally belief and doubt are not opposites, sometimes they walk hand in hand within our minds. Simultaneously.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Thread: > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140630184801/http:// > permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13445 > > Peircers, > > Correcting a few typos and continuing ... > > Just a note to anchor a series of recurring thoughts that come to mind > incidental to the thread on entropy, etc., but I won't have to much to say > on the bio-chemico-physico-thermo-dynamic side of things, so I'll spin > this off under a separate heading. My interest in this topic arises mainly > from my long-time work on inquiry driven systems, where understanding the > intertwined measures of uncertainty and information is critical to > comprehending the dynamics of inquiry. > > In a famous passage, Peirce says that inquiry begins with the "irritation > of doubt" and ends when the irritation is soothed. Here we find the same > compound of affective and cognitive ingredients that we find in Aristotle's > original recipe for the sign relation. > > When we view inquiry as a process taking place in a system the first thing > we have to ask is what are the properties or variables that we need to > consider in describing the state of the system at any given time. Taking a > Peircean perspective on a system capable of undergoing anything like an > inquiry process, we are led to ask what are the conditions for the > possibility of a system having "states of uncertainty" and "states of > information" as state variables. > > Saved by the Belle, and time for dinner ... > > > Jon > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
