Dear Helmut, list,
*There is a crying scandal in philosophy. * *This is the paradox of an extreme diversity of opinion in regard to the immediately given as such (that is to say, apparently, in regard to the obvious in its very obviousness).* The experiment therefore ought to be made, whether we should not succeed better with the problems of metaphysic, by assuming that the objects must conform to our mode of cognition, for this would better agree with the demanded possibility of an *a priori* knowledge of them, which is to settle something about objects, *before* they are given us. We have here the same case as with the first thought of Copernicus.. and I must therefore, even *before* objects are given to me, presuppose the rules of the understanding as existing within me *a priori*, these rules being expressed in concepts *a priori*, to which all objects of experience must necessarily conform, and with which they must agree. This experiment of pure reason has a great similarity with that of the chemists, which they sometimes call the experiment of reduction, or the synthetical process in general.. In this case, speculative reason has at least gained for us room for such an extension of knowledge, though it had to leave it empty, so that we are not only *at liberty*, but are really called upon to *fill it up*, if we are able, by *practical data* of reason. "[I intend] to make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, in the physical sciences, in history, in sociology, and in whatever other department there may be, shall appear as the *filling up* of its details. The exposition of the materials which for more than twelve successive years I had been carefully maturing, was not composed in a sufficiently suitable manner for general comprehension. For the perfecting of its exposition several years would have been required, whereas I brought it to completion in some four to five months, in the fear that, on longer delay, so prolonged a labour might finally become burdensome, and that my increasing years.. would perhaps incapacitate me, while I am still the sole possessor of my complete system. You see at once that we have here all the main elements of moral conduct. ____ So, why one two three; esthetics ethics logic; *from CP 5.402 to CP 5.189 *? Well, I would think that is obvious in its very obviousness, for The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason. As to purposive choice, it is clear that it is not absolutely identical with wish nor with opinion, but is opinion plus appetition when these follow as a conclusion from deliberation. But since one who deliberates always deliberates for the sake of some object, and a man deliberating always has some aim in view with reference to which he considers what is expedient, nobody deliberates about his End, but this is a starting-point or assumption, like the postulates in the theoretic sciences; whereas with all men deliberation whether technical or untechnical is about the means that lead to their End. And the question of means will depend rather on a prior question, that is, the question of object. For one who deliberates deliberates if he has considered, from the standpoint of the End, either what tends to enable him to bring the End to himself or how he can himself go to the End. “Aristotle thinks that the deliberator begins with a goal or target or end, the realization of which is both desirable and difficult: she cannot immediately see how to bring it about. She reasons backwards from this end, working out the process by which she might bring it into being. Drawing the end into the sphere of her own agency, she eventually hits upon something she sees she can do. This action then becomes the object of her choice. Aristotle’s agent *evaluates* neither the goal with which she begins her deliberation nor the action in which her deliberation ends. Instead, her deliberation consists in the mental activity of *deriving the action from the goal*.” Therefore the End is the starting-point of the process of thought, but the conclusion of the process of thought is the starting-point of action.. The End is therefore the object for which the thing chosen is the mean, of which End goodness is the cause by its act of choice—though the choice is not of the End but of the means adopted for the sake of the End. "Ethics is not practics; .. it involves the theory of the ideal itself, the nature of the summum bonum; and .. in so far as ethics studies the conformity of conduct to an ideal, it is limited to a particular ideal, which .... is in fact nothing but a sort of composite photograph of the conscience of the members of the community." ~Feibleman That is, *Telos* also possesses “exemplary validity”, which is recognized by *agathos* at the qualitatively distinct moment: “.. it takes discernment to decide which desirable things should be desired or pursued right now. This discernment is, once more, proprietary to the *agathos*. Why is the *agathos* the standard of ethical truth? The answer is: Because, qua *agathos*, he is the *telos* of a naturalistic process” ~Chappell I suppose this all has something or other to do with the guessing instinct.. But who here hasn’t fallen victim to the cultural amnesia when it comes to matters regarding esthetics ethics logic? For ‘Narration, we say, implies memory and prediction implies expectation.’ As to the saying ‘we are in thought rather than thoughts are in us’, there is more to be said but this letter is getting too long, and we must say many things briefly, for brevity has yet another value. So perhaps we should leave things by merely pointing the way to what we are doing when we are doing; the completing of Sign, for *Nothing is complete (teleion) which has no end (telos); and the end is a limit.* “..the whole universe is perfused with signs whose action in nature, culture and the human *psyche* constitutes the dynamical process of semiosis. Semiosis – from the Greek σηµείωσις, *s**ē**meí**ō**sis*, a derivation of the verb *s**ē**meiô* meaning “to mark” – is the name given by Peirce to the process of the evolution of signs. Briefly, semiotics is the study of signs and their signification; as such, it is considered to be of eminent importance to interdisciplinary research. A sign not only represents but also causes other signs to come to mind as a consequence of itself: this relation is expressed in the medieval formula *aliquid stat pro aliquo*, which is translated as something standing for something else. Human beings are sign-users, and semiotics can also serve as a meta-language, the function of which is to describe human action. Semiotics both constructs models, or sign-systems, and considers them to be its own object of research.” ~ Semetsky, *The Edusemiotics of Images* This is man, ". . . proud man, Most ignorant of what he's most assured, His glassy essence." But weak women and womanish men like those who mourn with them, and love them as true friends and sympathizers. With best wishes, Jerry R On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Jerry, List, > I agree that it is puzzling. > 1. The nature of the connection I see as the connection between > interpreting systems and signs. > 2. Ecosystems and niches have already complex relations, while each > (simple life form) individual is only interested in its own advantage. It > is like Adam Smith´s invisible hand, I guess. > 3. In a human, such complex relations may be individuated. A human is able > to look for more than her/his own advantage. Maybe other animals too? But > simple life forms not, I think. > 4. Just an appeal to puzzle on. Discourse ethics is e.g. that a human does > not merely look for her/his own advantage in a discussion, but also is > interested to keep the discussion going and being fruitful. > So I think, Adam Smith´s theory of the invisible hand is good for > ecosystems consisting of simple life forms, but not so much for a human > society, and neither a discourse. > Best, > Helmut > > 03. August 2018 um 23:51 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > > List, Helmut: > > > On Aug 3, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > List, > I think this topic is semiotically very relevant, and shows the connection > between semiotics and systems theory, with us as systems. > > > I am puzzled by this association. > What is the nature of the connection? > > I think the simplest relations between two systems are hierarchies. With > simpler life forms it is all about hierarchies, eating each other, etc. > > > I am equally puzzled by this assertion. > Would you agree that the biology is basically about reproduction over > generations and relationships between organisms and the surrounding niches? > > > Humans being able to create a non-hierarchical discourse situation is a > great achievement of genetic and cultural evolution. > > > Again, a very puzzling statement… What is the significance of this > claim? Meaning? > > I think it is a good idea to analyse non-hierarchical complex > relations-of-hierarchies, and develop a discourse ethics based on Peirce > and systems theories. > > > Finally, this is the most puzzling of all the sentences in the message. > To me, it reads as a self-contradictory assertion. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > Best, > Helmut > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 03. August 2018 um 03:13 Uhr > *Von:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *An:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Betreff:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recommendation: In email notes, avoid the > word 'you' > Edwina, List: > > The principle that no one can *make *someone else feel any particular way > *does > not *"imply that people are almost in a state of self-sufficient > isolation." It merely implies that each of us has a measure of > *self-control*, as Peirce clearly affirmed. No one else has *control *over > my feelings and responses, although others' behavior can and does *influence > *how I am likely to feel or respond in a given situation. > > Likewise, taking responsibility for those feelings and responses *does > not* "mean that whatever another person argues/says has no effect." It > merely means that the Dynamic Interpretant of an utterance is not *completely > dictated *by its Utterer. The Interpreter also plays a role, as > evidenced by the fact that the exact same statement can have very *different > *effects on different people. In Martin Luther's words, we can and > should "put the best construction on everything." > > If someone were to tell me, "What you suggest is a ridiculous brain-dead > analysis," I probably would indeed be upset initially; but how I > subsequently dealt with that emotion would be *up to me*. As Alan Jacobs > recommends in his recent book, *How to Think*, in such circumstances one > should "take five minutes," rather than saying or doing anything right away. > Then deliberately *choose *a course of action, rather than just *reacting > *in the heat of the moment. > > In summary, what I am proposing is that List members conscientiously > cultivate both specific *habits of action* (how we say things), as John > S. is advocating, and specific *habits of interpretation* (how we take > things), as Gary F. is advocating. Conveniently, Peirce had a lot to say > about how to go about this sort of thing; as I recently posted (again), > "Logic [i.e., semeiotic] may be defined as the science of the laws of the > stable establishment of beliefs [i.e., habits]" (CP 3.429; 1896). > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: >> >> Jon, list >> >> 1] But is an assertive approach the best way to function within a >> scientific research community? That is, if it's the case that " Another >> principle of assertiveness is that no one can make someone else feel any >> particular way, or respond in any particular way" doesn't this imply that >> people are almost in a state of self-sufficient isolation? >> >> 2]And, if it's the case that " Instead, each of us should take full >> responsibility for our own feelings and responses" - doesn't this mean that >> whatever another person argues/says has no effect? >> >> As an example, if someone says to me: "What you suggest is a ridiculous >> brain-dead analysis" - should my feeling upset about this [and I hope I >> WOULD feel upset; I'm not a psychopath who is indifferent to >> others]….should I really take full i.e., singular responsibility for my >> upset feeling? Shouldn't the person who said it to me in the first >> place, share this responsibility? That is - is it up to me alone to 'not >> take offense'? >> >> I don't think that we, as a species, can function well without a >> sensitivity to how we affect others, such that we even change our tone, our >> words, our body language, when we interact with different people - because >> we do want to 'make' them feel in a particular way. I treat a two-year old >> quite differently from a graduate student and differently from a colleague. >> >> I think that John Sowa's recommendations are a constructive agenda - and >> I'll try to follow them. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Thu 02/08/18 7:52 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: >> >> List: >> >> Employing "I" messages, rather than "you" messages, is a staple of >> assertiveness training. It is an effective rhetorical strategy grounded in >> psychology. I think that it is especially important to be careful about >> attributing views, sentiments, or states to someone else that he or she did >> not actually express; John's example of "you are confused" is in this >> category. >> >> At the same time, whether a particular statement is insulting is--at >> least to some extent--in the eye of the beholder. Another principle of >> assertiveness is that no one can make someone else feel any particular >> way, or respond in any particular way. Instead, each of us should take >> full responsibility for our own feelings and responses. >> >> Consequently, we would all do well to heed both pieces of advice that >> have been offered in this thread--avoid "you" when possible, and choose >> not to take offense. I try to follow both of these practices when >> posting here, but as the record shows, I am not always successful. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> ----------------------------- 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
