I find the issue remote from what I sense. Sorry. It seems almost a supposition which is my term for something different than what can be proved. To speak of logic seems t me to speak of what tends to good. Did Peirce believe this? I think he did. I think his explanation about inkstands reverts to abstract discussions which are remote. At least to me. Bear in mind I have gaps in my apparatus more portentous than Peirce's lefthandedness.I would say that when psychology functions triadically it has made strides in the direction of logic.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Stephen, here’s a Peirce quote that illustrates the point Peter is making: > > > > [[ A psychologist cuts out a lobe of my brain (*nihil animale me alienum > puto*) and then, when I find I cannot express myself, he says, “You see > your faculty of language was localized in that lobe.” No doubt it was; and > so, if he had filched my inkstand, I should not have been able to continue > my discussion until I had got another. Yea, the very thoughts would not > come to me. So my faculty of discussion is equally localized in my > inkstand. It is localization in a sense in which a thing may be in two > places at once. On the theory that the distinction between psychical and > physical phenomena is the distinction between final and efficient > causation, it is plain enough that the inkstand and the brain-lobe have the > same general relation to the functions of the mind. ] CP 7.366, 1902] > > > > What I referred to as his “anti-psychologism” is his frequent insistence > that the science of logic has nothing to learn from the science of > psychology (which was generally understood at the time to be about how > *human* minds work (although it did include some experiments on other > animals). Frederik Stjernfelt takes a close look at the anti-psychologism > of Peirce and other logicians in his book *Natural Propositions*. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Peter Skagestad [mailto:skagest...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 21-Jan-18 16:15 > *To:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com>; Gary Fuhrman < > g...@gnusystems.ca>; Peirce List <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12 > > > > Stephen, list, > > > > Two comments. First, I think this is a big deal and have written > extensively about it, most recently in the Peirce Quote Book, but also in > earlier writings found on the Arisbe website. > > > > Second, I see no actual contradiction between what you are saying and what > Gary said. Peirce nowhere puts down the brain or denies that it is the > locus of conscious activity; he simply does not restrict *reasoning* to > this conscious activity in the brain, but includes activities that involve > arms, hands, pencils, and paper, most famously the activity of creating and > manipulating diagrams. So yes, in Peirce’s view as I understand it, brains > are indeed wonderful, but so are pencils and paper, which vastly augment > the reasoning power of the brain. > > > > Best, > > Peter > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Sunday, January 21, 2018 3:52 PM > *To: *Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca>; Peirce List > <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12 > > > > Is Peirce's anti-psychologism really putting down the brain as a source of > conscious thinking? I thought he was simply flagging the limits of > psychology as a basis for explaining things. Not a big deal but I do think > the brain or whatever we take to be our inner thinking mechanism is quite a > precious piece of work and that we can combat psychologist just the same. > We can question Cartesianism without throwing out thinking. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
