List: An intervention concerning two recent posts and intertwined issues.
On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:51 PM, Thomas wrote: > Emotion propels a lot of activity other than logic. Usually they are > considered as opposites. Their mutually reinforcing partnership when > abduction occurs is the paradox of Man's success. and From Gary's post: "There is a reason, an interpretation, a logic, in the course of scientific advance, and this indisputably proves to him who has perceptions of rational or significant relations, that man's mind must have been attuned to the truth of things in order to discover what he has discovered. It is the very bedrock of logical truth. CP 6.476" The question of the entelechy creates tension between these two assertions. Creative people act with planning and purpose. Management of personal and professional affairs often engages hours, days, weeks, months... of logical preparation in pursuit of a particular goal. Generally such activities are driven by personal desires and emotions. Correspondently, the unfolding of success or failure is consequence of the logical and emotional components of the earlier motivations. Thus, I find no conundrum nor paradox in the general relation between emotions and logic. Also, I find no substantial reason to introduce any special form of logic into the discussion. However, on a individual case by case basis, emotions often overrule trivial logical concerns/issues and like-wise, logical conclusions often overrule trivial emotional concerns. (Some may call this mental titter-todder a "judgment".) My first overt recognition of the radix of this situation occurred several decades ago when I was an active participant in governmental safety and health debates during rule-making processes where competing economic interests were "in play". One see this often on this and other list serves when scientists seek to be persuasive, and base their logic for a philosophical position based on their religious beliefs. In other words, religious beliefs become the critical foundational belief for the emotional preliminaries that set the stage for the rhetoric premises that leads to conclusions. CSP introduced the concept of "Leading Principle" to express his recognition of the rhetorical fog that we all swim in. IMHO, the concept of "Leading Principle" deserves deeper inquiry that it generally given. In my opinion, the recent months of discussions on "Natural Propositions" started not from CSP's leading principle, the trichotomy, but rather ill-defined sources. Fortunately, the discussions of diagrammatic logic put value into exercise. On an aligned topic, I am currently reading "Infinitesimal - How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory shaped the Modern World." by Amir Alexander. Excellent history, almost reads like a novel. This book supplies deep background on several of CSP beliefs that deeply conflict with modern theories of mathematics and science. When time permit, I tentatively plan a significant post on this topic. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
