Clark, list,
Thanks, Clark, for following up.
Listers, the reason that we don't simply ask Texas Tech to close the old
lyris.ttu.edu peirce-l server against new posts, is that we don't want
to take any chances of some broader shutdown of Texas Tech's old
peirce-l . The Texas Tech Lyris archive is the main archive for many
years of peirce-l posts.
Best regards,
Ben Udell as co-manager, for myself and Gary Richmond as moderator and
co-manager,
peirce-l
On 8/18/2014 4:07 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Clark, you sent the message below, like your previous one, to the OLD
peirce-l server at Texas Tech (lyris.ttu.edu)
You need to send this one again to, this time to the CURRENT peirce-l
server [email protected]
Otherwise, many current subscribers won't receive it. Those
long-timers who do receive it, and who reply to it, may end up
replying via the old server, and so the problem grows!
Best, Ben, as co-manager, peirce-l
On 8/18/2014 3:12 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
Just to add to that last post, it’s also worth considering in terms
of causation and Aristotle’s taxonomy Peirce’s own conception of
inside/outside of the sign. Typically Peirce is interpreted to
consider habit formation as something that occurs within the sign.
This “within” is often seen as the psychic aspect whereas externally
it’s considered chance. (Bringing in some of Perice’s metaphysics
now) This gets at the interesting ontology of creation Peirce gives
in 1891 that I’d quoted here a few weeks ago.
in the beginning -- infinitely remote -- there was a chaos
of unpersonalized Feeling, which being without connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This Feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have started
the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be
evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the
tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other
principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe
would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance
survives and will remain until the world becomes anabsolutely
perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at
last crystallized in the infinitely distant future. (CP 6.33)
Again I think some parallels to neoPlatonism of late antiquity,
especially Plotinus, are relevant here for thinking through how
Peirce regards Aristotle. But again, I also recognize that Peirce’s
ontology is extremely controversial. Many who love Peirce still balk
at much of his metaphysics. While I think Peirce’s thought tends to
hinge all together, one can probably separate his notion of signs
without adopting his metaphysics of signs, mind, and matter.
I confess that it’s an implication of Peirce’s thought it seems to me
that the universe is losing mind as it becomes more regular. Which
seems an odd thing to have in his metaphysics. Peirce often refers to
it as crystallization of mind.
-----------------------------
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 .
