I think Peirce has the answer in triadic thinking as opposed to the yes and no that is the cultural expression of binary thinking. The maxim suggests that ethics and esthetics have a role t play in conscious thought. THat has immense implications.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Stephen, John, list, > yes, thank you. I always wonder about this gap. In physics there is > experimental physics and theoretical physics, but do they quarrel or > disagree? No. They are trying to get along, and do (Higgs boson, dark > matter...). But the philosophers, they still are split up, either being for > empiricism or metaphysics, as if both were contradicting ideologies, and > not merely different ways of approach (top-down and bottom-up). Maybe there > still is some theological residues at work, from medieval times, when it > was about the question at stake of transsubstiantiation, and "at stake" > really meant "at stake", which direness still is present in the collective > memory of philosophy, still not having achieved riddance of this bad old > horror? Maybe "metaphysics" is a conceptual monster that still arouses bad > feelings, for very good historical reasons. It is both hard to cope with > it and without it. > > , 02. Juni 2018 um 23:57 Uhr > "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Wittgenstein was making a point about "metaphysical" language for which > there was no scientific proof. It is the conclusion of his Tractatus. I > think he was suggesting such language is inevitably incapable of grasping > what remains a mystery. He knew of course that most speech is not > responsive to the rules he helped established and he himself changed. As to > your Nietzsche comment in a previous post, I think he must be credited with > Wittgenstein for helping pave the way for a philosophy that can, as Peirce > seemed to wish, bridge the gap between the scientific and metaphysical. > Your own sense of synthesis seems to want to accomplish that. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und >> wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said >> at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be >> silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter >> tautologies, I take this for an inquiry-block. But I guess he just had a >> bad day then, but otherwise was a good philosopher too. >> John, list, >> maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too >> say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he >> said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t >> remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine, >> what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I >> read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up". >> Best, helmut >> >> , 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr >> *:* "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net> >> wrote: >> On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: >> > some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism, >> > semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn, >> > empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may >> > be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses, >> > dialectically. Isnt that so? >> >> The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the >> basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there >> is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind. >> >> A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine, >> and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that >> they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect, >> >> I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore, >> thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them. >> >> I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also >> learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity. >> >> I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now. >> But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes >> the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf >> >> John >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
