Dear Jon: I am confused, but perhaps something I said created the confusion. So, let's see if I can obtain a state of unconfusement. The problem is whether my example of firstness, etc. can be corrected. Here is my original example:
I am a student sitting in a class listening to an interesting lecture, when suddenly an explosion occurs. It could be a firecracker under behind the professor's desk, or a truck wreck on the street right outside the classroom windows. The sound of true explosion, whatever it is, is sudden, unexpected, and immediate. The sound or other shock waves hitting my body constitute firstness--I feel them. Secondness is what my body does in reaction, which is to immediately and involuntarily, raise my head, flinch, and commence other bodily reactions to the explosion waves reaching me. Thirdness occurs next, when my mind begins to wonder what just happened. In correcting me, you write: BN: The sound or other shock waves hitting my body constitute firstness--I feel them. I would be inclined to associate this more with Secondness, because it is Reaction of the shock waves and your body, not a Quality that is what it is independent of anything else. What I am proposing is that I delete the words "--I feel them." What I intended to convey was the idea that you earlier corrected me on, where you distinguish between reality and existence this way: Reality consists of that which has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes that it has those characters; existence consists of that which interacts or reacts with other things. What I mean in the example of firstness, etc. above is that the shock or sound waves constitute firstness, i.e., brute reality. By secondness in the example I mean that when the sound or shock wave hit me, I become aware of them, and my body involuntarily and without conscious thinking reacts. And by thirdness, I first wonder what made the sound or shock waves. Can I achieve this by deleting "--I feel them," and is the example then sound? Thanks, Ben N. *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 Telephone: (814) 808-5702 *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > wrote: > Ben N., List: > > Thanks for attempting to steer the discussion back to the original thread > topic. :-) > > BN: The sound or other shock waves hitting my body constitute > firstness--I feel them. > > > I would be inclined to associate this more with Secondness, because it is > Reaction of the shock waves and your body, not a Quality that is what it is > independent of anything else. > > BN: So, let's go back to Jon's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th questions, because I > think he is on to something: > > > While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I believe that we still need to > address the first question first--to what was Peirce specifically referring > as "a theory of the nature of thinking" or "this theory of thinking"? > > These were both unusual expressions for him to use; neither appears > anywhere else in the Collected Papers. By contrast, "theory of logic" and > "science of logic" each occur 20 times, while "theory of reasoning" occurs > 18 times and "science of reasoning" occurs five times. Even "theory of > thought" and "science of thought" show up only once each, and one of those > occasions is in the cited title of a work by someone else. However, in CP > 1.573 (also EP 2.376; 1906), Peirce does state that "Logic, regarded from > one instructive, though partial and narrow, point of view, is the theory of > deliberate thinking." Furthermore, in manuscript R 634 (1909), a draft > preface for a book whose working title was *Meaning*, he wrote that > "logic is the theory of thinking, so far as thinking conduces to the > attainment of truth." He went on to say, later in the same paragraph, that > "logic should be regarded as coextensive with General Semeiotic, the *a > priori* theory of signs." So it seems plausible, and perhaps likely, > that Peirce had his entire theory of "Logic, Considered as Semeiotic" in > mind when he wrote "A Neglected Argument." > > I have now discovered further clues, which pertain to all four of my > "interesting questions," in the manuscripts that contain various drafts of > that article (R 841-844). The final version, as published in *The > Hibbert Journal*, contains a somewhat lengthy description of the "hidden > argument," followed by a relatively brief discussion of the Three Stages of > Inquiry and their logical validity. What appears to be the very first > draft (R 842) has it the other way around, as the following introductory > comments anticipate. > > CSP: Yet this [humble] argument has seldom been much insisted upon by > theologians for the reason that, persuasive as it is, it has not seemed to > them to be logical. This I conceive has been due to a false theory of > logic; and consequently the main substance of the present paper must be a > brief abstract of a defence of a theory of logic according to which the > theological argument in question is as logically sound as it certainly is > persuasive. Thus, I am to outline two arguments, one supporting the > other. The latter, which I will designate as the humble argument, although > every mind can feel its force, rests on far too many premisses to be stated > in full. Taking the general description of it as a minor premiss, and a > certain theory of logic as a major premiss, it will follow by a simple > syllogism that the humble argument is logical and that consequently whoever > acknowledges its premisses need have no scruple in accepting its conclusion. > > > What Peirce here called "a certain theory of logic" seems to be precisely > what he later characterized in the first additament as "a theory of the > nature of thinking" and "this theory of thinking." It is the major > premiss, and "a general description of the humble argument" is the minor > premiss, of "a simple syllogism" whose conclusion is "that the humble > argument is logical." Notice the modesty of this claim--Peirce was not so > much trying to "prove" the Reality of God as merely assert that anyone who > embraces his theory of logic and recognizes that the humble argument is > consistent with it "need have no scruple in accepting its conclusion." He > continued ... > > CSP: Only, of course, it becomes necessary to establish the major > premiss, which is the theory of logic; and it is sufficiently clear that to > do this in a thoroughly satisfactory manner would involve going over the > whole of the critical branch of logic and showing that the theory in > question satisfactorily explains every variety of argument. Now I cannot, > within reasonable limits, consider more than the main *genera* of > arguments. So much, I will do. The subsidiary arguments of a mixed > character, although highly important in actual reasonings, cannot, within > my limits, be considered. Moreover, the critical branch of logic really, > even more than apparently, depends upon the very difficult and still vexed > analytical branch, whose problems could not easily be brought to the > apprehension of ordinary readers, to say nothing of the task of laying the > foundations for their scientific solutions. But *fortunately, we have an > instinct for that which is rational*, and upon that ordinary readers > ought to rely. Accordingly, while I cannot here present a thoroughly > scientific defence of my theory of logic, I shall hope to make it appear > reasonable. > > > I find it fascinating, and perhaps relevant in this context, that Peirce > appealed to his readers' "instinct for that which is rational" in an effort > to make up for his inability to lay out his theory of logic "in a > thoroughly satisfactory manner." He then proceeded to offer only a single > paragraph outlining the "hidden argument," followed by many pages about > Retroduction, Deduction, and (especially) Induction, before (apparently) > realizing that he had far exceeded the allotted length and had to start > over, almost from scratch. In fact, some of this content was published as > CP 2.755-772 under the heading, "The Varieties and Validity of Induction," > with no indication that it is connected with "A Neglected Argument"; > instead, it is referenced simply as manuscript "G" and incorrectly dated > c.1905. Two different versions of the text end with equal abruptness. A > later fragment (in R 843) includes this alternative summary. > > CSP: My main concern is to show that that line of reflexion which I call > the Neglected Argument is an argument, and a particularly strong one, of > the kind with which every positive scientific inquisition must begin. The > lowliest minds will rest content with this without any fault in their > conclusion or their logic; while the more critical, may still their > lingering doubts, by completing the line of inquiry which the Neglected > Argument opens; while on its concomitants they may base another Argument > supporting the former, and so be led on to further reflections, remarks, > and experiences which attain all the force of sound induction, the highest > grade of certainty to which the human mind can attain in any Real subject. > > > For many (most?), the NA is sufficient by itself--and Peirce is fine with > that! For those not fully satisfied by the NA, it serves instead as the > initial step of a more rigorous investigation. Both outcomes are fully > consistent with Peirce's "theory of the nature of thinking," as captured in > this structural engineering metaphor from the published article. > > CSP: Over the chasm that yawns between the ultimate goal of science and > such ideas of Man's environment as, coming over him during his primeval > wanderings in the forest, while yet his very notion of error was of the > vaguest, he managed to communicate to some fellow, we are building a > cantilever bridge of induction, held together by scientific struts and > ties. Yet every plank of its advance is first laid by Retroduction alone, > that is to say, by the spontaneous conjectures of instinctive reason; and > neither Deduction nor Induction contributes a single new concept to the > structure. (CP 4.475) > > > I am still digesting all of the contents of the manuscripts, but those are > some thoughts so far. I am very grateful to Jeffrey Downard for calling to > my attention the Scalable Peirce Interpretation Network (SPIN), which is > making images of Peirce's manuscripts available for transcribing ( > http://fromthepage.com/collection/show?collection_id=16). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Jon Alan Schmidt: >> >> I would like to go back to the point that this chain of emails began. Jon >> Alan Schmidt asked about something he found Peirce had said in the *Neglected >> Argument*, which had been omitted in the version published in the *Essential >> Peirce*: >> >> CSP: Among the many pertinent considerations which have been crowded out >> of this article, I may just mention that it could have been shown that the >> hypothesis of God's Reality is logically not so isolated a conclusion as it >> may seem. On the contrary, it is connected so with a theory of the nature >> of thinking that if this be proved so is that. Now there is no such >> difficulty in tracing experiential consequences of this theory of thinking >> as there are in attempting directly to trace out other consequences of >> God's reality. >> >> >> Jon said that raised "a few interesting questions," namely: >> >> 1. To what specifically was Peirce referring here as "a theory of the >> nature of thinking"--the three stages of a "complete inquiry" and their >> "logical validity," as laid out in sections III and IV of the paper, or >> something else? >> 2. How exactly is "this theory of thinking" *logically *connected >> with "the hypothesis of God's reality"? >> 3. What would be some "experiential consequences of this theory of >> thinking" that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, deductively >> trace and inductively test? >> 4. What exactly would it mean to "prove" Peirce's "theory of the >> nature of thinking," such that "the hypothesis of God's reality" would >> thereby also be "proved"? >> >> I have some tentative thoughts about these matters, including a couple of >> ideas that I found in the secondary literature, but would appreciate seeing >> what others have to say initially. >> >> So, let me respond. >> >> I thought I understood firstness, secondness, and thirdness when our >> discussion began. This is the example I had in mind. I am a student >> sitting in a class listening to an interesting lecture, when suddenly an >> explosion occurs. It could be a firecracker under behind the professor's >> desk, or a truck wreck on the street right outside the classroom windows. >> The sound of true explosion, whatever it is, is sudden, unexpected, and >> immediate. The sound or other shock waves hitting my body constitute >> firstness--I feel them. Secondness is what my body does in reaction, which >> is to immediately and involuntarily, raise my head, flinch, and commence >> other bodily reactions to the explosion waves reaching me. Thirdness occurs >> next, when my mind begins to wonder what just happened. All this can >> happen in far less than the blink of an eye. Peirce's analysis of it by >> breaking it down in this way was thought to be a fertile way of beginning >> to understand thinking, or to begin a theory of thinking. >> >> Please correct me again, Jon, if that is not an elementary example of >> firstness, etc. >> >> However, I soon got lost in the subsequent discussion of these, where >> thirdness became intertwined with secondness and firstness, and so on, in >> the subsequent emails. I do not doubt that all of you are correct that >> Peirce did take this rudimentary example to far heights of thinking which I >> may just be constitutionally unable to rise to. But my reading of Peirce >> suggests that he was a very pragmatic person who appreciated someone from >> Missouri showing up and saying "show me." In any event, so much of the >> subsequent discussion involved concepts going back and forth with no >> examples that allowed them to be brought to earth for examination. At >> least, that is what it seemed to me. >> >> So, is it possible to get back to the original question. Remember that >> Peirce thought that all this became clear to him his daily walks through >> the woods, and he wrote this essay suggesting that its thinking would be >> available to anyone of ordinary intelligence who pondered the three >> universes suggested on their own daily walks through the woods. >> >> So, let's go back to Jon's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th questions, because I think >> he is on to something: >> >> 1. How exactly is "this theory of thinking" *logically *connected >> with "the hypothesis of God's reality"? >> 2. What would be some "experiential consequences of this theory of >> thinking" that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, deductively >> trace and inductively test? >> 3. What exactly would it mean to "prove" Peirce's "theory of the >> nature of thinking," such that "the hypothesis of God's reality" would >> thereby also be "proved"? >> >> In response, some raised the ontological argument of St. Anselm. But the >> raising of it was not followed through. Here is my question (which I hope >> "nests" all three of Jon's questions): >> >> What would Anselm's ontological argument look like if it were restated in >> Peirce's terms? In other words, could Anselm have discovered the same >> argument as Peirce? Would this give us any insight into the theory of >> thinking? Peirce says that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, >> deductively and inductively test such a theory of thinking. Someone from >> Missouri might say, "Show me." >> >> Ben Novak >> >> *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* >> 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 >> Telephone: (814) 808-5702 >> >> *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts >> themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar >> of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and >> a sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear >> accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
