I recall that Peirce said the act of abduction creates an "emotion" within the individual. It struck me at the time. I took it to mean a good feeling imprinted during infancy, when a mother (caregiver) consistently rewarded the baby-infant for learning.
Emotion building with mama: 1- the act of Abduction leads to ... 2- A problem is solved which results in ... 3- A "good feeling" of love, encouragement ... which generates a desire to abduct again. One's basic emotional state is pretty firmly established by age 3-4. Therefore, while mama is smiling and praising and kissing baby for figuring out how to navigate the world, baby learns that being a creative problem-solver is a good thing. Eventually the individual's character incorporates an "emotional sign relationship": Object: Happiness Sign: Abduction Interpretant: Developing a better approach for addressing a challenge ... which results in greater happiness and a desire to abduct again. As a result, people abduct hypotheses about things they know very little about, for problems in which they have little or no personal stake. We do it for sport -- usually internally, without telling others. We do it so often that it is almost an unconscious act. We do it (I believe) in early (non-REM) stages of dreaming. Regarding "instinct": Regardless of Peirce's comments, I question/doubt if instinct provides a firm foundation for explaining Man's logical proclivities. Instincts are what a representative Man is born with, independent of teaching or other social assistance. In the case of logical thought, that is an unobservable phenomenon. If a child is without any social contact, it never becomes a decision maker and never makes logical choices (beyond the decision to cry for attention). If it is given food and no attention, the baby will likely (based on actual experience) develop into an insecure, broken person who is not equipped to solve problems. Inasmuch as no individual man creates knowledge purely on instinct alone, it seems more likely that Peirce was speaking of Mankind when he remarked on the role of instinct -- as in: Mankind has created an incredible amount of knowledge, considering the fact we started at near zero and have not been assisted by any outside/higher forces. Other creatures must perforce lack the "instinct" that Man has for solving problems. These are my thoughts after reading that passage in Peirce about the "emotion" associated with abduction. I would be happy to receive comments/critiques/extensions. Regards, Tom Wyrick > On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> > wrote: > > List, > > John, I was not trying to suggest that the Century definitions of instinct > are unhelpful. Rather, my suggestion was that they are good place to start > if you want to understand how Peirce is using the word. The definitions show > the generality of his conception--and how it fits with established usage > running back to Shakespeare and Milton. In his own work, he might very well > have developed refined scientific explanations of the nature of different > sorts of instincts as they are expressed in protoplasm, plants, lower > animals, humans (or crystals, for that matter), but we would need to look at > the particularities of what he says in order to work that out. > > Stephen, I don't see a how your expression of the Peircean paradigm, which > takes instincts to be knowledge as learned fits with the first two > definitions he provides. It does fit with what he says about the special > cases of lower and higher animals, but that does not appear to capture the > generality of his other definitions of instincts as the expression of > internal potencies or principles. My hunch is that Peirce is starting from a > set of nominal definitions which express how the term is typically used, and > then drawing on the explanations of the nature of instincts that have been > especially informative in the history of philosophy and the sciences (e.g., > Aristotle, Darwin), and then trying to refine those explanations as he works > towards a higher degree of clarity about the real nature of such things. > > In order to work out the character of Peirce's explanations, a comparison to > other positions that he was considering--such as William James's--might be > helpful. See: "What is an Instinct?" > > --Jeff > > Jeff Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > NAU > (o) 523-8354 > ________________________________________ > From: Stephen Jarosek [sjaro...@iinet.net.au] > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:28 AM > To: 'John Collier'; mig...@cegri.es; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > > A further observation regarding the distinction between the Peircean paradigm > (knowledge, including instinct, as learned) versus genocentrism (instinct as > data in the DNA). If we interpret the Peircean paradigm in the context of > "knowing how to be," then we obtain a major insight into what unifies the > many agents within any collective (like people in a culture, bees in a hive, > etc) into a unified whole. The need to "know how to be" motivates every agent > in a collective to observe its partner agents and how they behave... the > penalty for misbehaving often impacts adversely on survival. Contrast this > with the genocentric paradigm, which portrays the winning behaviours as > "adaptive" and the "best" adapted agents being selected as the progenitors of > selfish genes. One paradigm integrates and unifies, and the other isolates > and divides. One is likely and sustainable, the other, as part of the long > line of happy accidents that is presumed to define genocentric evolution, is > unlikely and unsustainable. One resists the corrosive effects of entropy, the > other must invariably succumb to it. > > From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 8:15 AM > To: 'John Collier'; mig...@cegri.es<mailto:mig...@cegri.es>; > peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > > List, > I find the notion of instinct as a separate and distinct category of > knowledge, “written down in the DNA,” as it were, problematic. There must be, > imho, a way to account for instinct within the context of pragmatism, the > three categories, and ultimately, “knowing how to be.” I suspect that DNA > entanglement (nonlocality) might have a crucial part to play... this is an > unsubstantiated hunch on my part, and I know that many people are reluctant > to go down this “DNA entanglement” route. But I figure that an interpretation > within the context of DNA entanglement will resolve a number of intractable > issues in biology, physics and biophysics, this instinct distinction being > number one among them... I would also rank the problem of entropy (the > natural proclivity of ordered DNA “data” to disorder) as equally important, > but that lies beyond this question of the instinct distinction. > sj > > From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 2:36 AM > To: mig...@cegri.es<mailto:mig...@cegri.es>; > peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > > Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for sending this > gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it. > > I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not particularly > useful. > > I should be asleep. Best to all, > > John > > From: mig...@cegri.es<mailto:mig...@cegri.es> [mailto:mig...@cegri.es] > Sent: July 15, 2015 1:18 AM > To: John Collier; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Dear John, > > In the last paragraph of an extremely interesting text, "A Theory of Probable > Inference", W4: 408-450 (1883); Peirce points that "Side by side, then, with > the well established proposition that all knowledge is based on experience, > and that science is only advanced by the experimental verifications of > theories, we have to place this other equally important truth, that all human > knowledge, up to the highest flights of science, is but the development of > our inborn animal instincts." > > Best, > > Miguel Angel Fernandez > > El 14/07/2015 a las 19:08, John Collier escribió: > Folks, > > I am very interested in instincts for various reasons. I recently gave a talk > on Piaget’s views on instincts at the International Society for Philosophy, > History and Social Sciences in Biology in Montreal last week. I would be most > interested if there is a Peircean position on instincts that can be supported > by his writings. I would be surprised if this were not so, but so far I have > not seen anything that I could use. > > Best to all, > John > > From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] > Sent: July 12, 2015 8:04 PM > To: ozzie...@gmail.com<mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com> > Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Edwina Taborsky; Benjamin Udell; > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu><mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Ozzie, Stephen, Stephen, List, > I agree. And I think, that idealists are in fact realists, because: Liberty, > equality, fraternity and justice are not only ideals, but also human > instincts, inherited structure of the human race, written down in the DNA. > That is so, because genetically we are still hunters and collectors, and they > have led a free life, people were quite equal with their rights and plights, > everybody was dependent on everybody else, and they had to solve conflicts in > a just way. So I think, that culture is often overestimated, a rigid culture > can block these instincts for a while, but they will reappear soon. This view > is just rosy because of its hope, that no rigid culture will gain total > control. > Best, > Helmut > > > Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com<mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com>> > > Stephen ~ > I don't go along with your characterization of American history in such > generic terms. You seem to say the founding fathers supported personal > freedom -- end of story. But America's founding fathers revolted for a > specific reason: English citizens living in the American colonies did not > have representatives in the British Parliament or the protections of British > law. > > The US Constitution established a central government with constraints on what > it could do, but among those constraints we do not find a limit on the size > of government, special rights for a privileged minority or protection of the > status quo (independent of other legally recognized rights). > Live-and-let-live is the law of the land, but when enough citizens support > new policies the founding fathers provided them/us a means of promoting > their/our aspirations. New laws, new states, new voters, and Constitutional > amendments were all anticipated within their master plan. Change. > > Thus America was a controlled social experiment. The founding fathers > established a mechanism for seeking the most beneficial social policies, but > didn't prescribe them. > > As far as outcomes, everyone has an opinion. That's politics. > > Regards, > > Tom Wyrick > > > > > On Jul 12, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > It would seem that Edwina and I are on the same page throughout most of this > topic. It is often said that the founding fathers of America understood > something about human nature, hence their emphasis on minimal government. > What was that “something?” Let me posit a guess. IMHO, it would proceed by > way of the following reasoning: > > 1. Idealists are usually well-intentioned enough. They see the world > through rose-coloured glasses and want to fix things that they perceive are > “wrong” or “broken.” But accompanying their best intentions is a problem... a > very intractable problem; > > 2. To make the naive but well-intentioned vision of idealists work, > they need to harness cultural groupthink, and they need to implement the > machinery of bureaucracies... ie, big government. They need to give license > to groupthink to make it work. The person that assimilates well into the cogs > of bureaucratic groupthink is a very different kind of animal to the naive > but well-intentioned idealist; > > 3. The typical idealist is usually a very congenial person with > passions and ideas. The typical bureaucrat (at least from the perspective of > my own experience as a whistleblower-turned-refugee) is usually a secretive > troglodyte that maps his own agenda to the purpose of the greater > bureaucratic machine. He uses the bureaucratic machine, principally, to > further his own ends, and his ideal situation is synergy between his own > agenda and that of the bureaucracy. Any person that is perceived as a threat > to both agendas is perceived as dangerous and is to be eliminated. In the > meantime, while all this takes places under the cover of The Privacy Act, > EEO, FOI, HR, and other such smoke-and-mirrors hogwash, the bureaucracy > carries on its people-friendly masquerade that is usually publicly associated > with the intentions of the idealists. > I think that America’s founding fathers were onto something. How tragic that > it’s all falling into a heap now. This then, is the crux of the problem. > Bureaucracies require the application of a very different kind of groupthink > psychology to that of the individualistic idealist that inspires them... the > secrets and hidden agendas that make the behemoth of stoopid work are very > different to the congenial, public best wishes of the idealists, and there is > no solution to this conflict of interest. It is at this juncture that the > well-intentioned idealist becomes naught but a useful idiot... useful as a > public face of the bureaucratic machine that takes on a life of its own. > sj > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca<tabor...@primus.ca>] > Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:54 PM > To: Thomas > Cc: Benjamin Udell; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Yes, very nice outline, Thomas, of the strength of the 'melting pot' tactic, > which I support. And that's why I'm against the current focus on > 'multiculturalism' and 'identity politics' which is all the rage in America > and Europe now. It actually retains and fosters those ancient irrational > tribal hatreds. And any 'progressive' who, in their multicultural/identity > political sanctimonious zeal doesn't understand that these minority enclaves > - which are kept insular by multiculturalism/identity politics.... can be > even more racist, bigoted and irrational than any majority...is naive in the > extreme. > > Edwina > <
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
