oh, I almost forgot this relevant part: and in future years I am confident that you will recur to these thoughts and find that *you have more to thank me for than you could understand at first*.
Best, J On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 9:35 PM Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Stephen, list, > > A certain maxim of Logic which I have called Pragmatism has recommended > itself to me for divers reasons and on sundry considerations. Having taken > it as my guide in most of my thought, I find that as the years of my > knowledge of it lengthen, my sense of the importance of it presses upon me > more and more. If it is only true, it is certainly a wonderfully efficient > instrument. It is not to philosophy only that it is applicable. I have > found it of signal service in every branch of science that I have studied. > My want of skill in practical affairs does not prevent me from perceiving > the advantage of being well imbued with pragmatism in the conduct of life. > > Best, > Jerry R > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:07 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I understand the omni aspect of Peirce's sense of semiotics - but it >> really needs to be made the basis of global pedagogy with some >> interpretation of how it all fits together that ordinary folk can >> understand. >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 7:39 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Stephen, list >>> >>> Peirce used the terms 'genuine' and 'degenerate' to refer to what we >>> might define as 'pure' and 'mixed' categories. >>> >>> I don't think that he confined his semiosis to human beings. I think >>> that his semiosis was an action of Mind - and Mind, as he wrote is not >>> confined to human beings. >>> >>> "Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the >>> work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world" 4.551. >>> >>> Is intentionality agapistic? I'd say ' yes'. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue 16/04/19 7:25 PM , Stephen Curtiss Rose stever...@gmail.com sent: >>> >>> Good to see intentionality and thirdness. Is genuineness his term? >>> >>> I would like to assume that Peirce built a philosophy whose end is >>> indeed intention and that the primary intenders are human beings. Is there >>> any instance where Peirce suggests this? If so is the intention agapaic? >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:50 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> The clearest test for a genuine Thirdness is the presence of some >>>> intentionality -- of some animate being or of some law of nature. >>>> I like the examples Peirce cited in CP 1.366 below. >>>> >>>> General principle: Intentionality by some animate agent is always >>>> a genuine Thirdness. That agent may be as simple as a bacterium >>>> swimming upstream in a glucose gradient. In CP 1.366, Peirce says >>>> that a law of nature is "intelligence objectified" -- that makes it >>>> the equivalent of an intention. >>>> >>>> If you do a global search of CP, you'll get about 148 instances of >>>> "intention" or some word that includes it as part. Representation >>>> is a special case of intentionality. In many of the examples, the >>>> intentionality is clear, but representation is less obvious. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> CP 1.366. Among thirds, there are two degrees of degeneracy. The first >>>> is where there is in the fact itself no Thirdness or mediation, but >>>> where there is true duality; the second degree is where there is not >>>> even true Secondness in the fact itself. Consider, first, the thirds >>>> degenerate in the first degree. A pin fastens two things together by >>>> sticking through one and also through the other: either might be >>>> annihilated, and the pin would continue to stick through the one which >>>> remained. A mixture brings its ingredients together by containing each. >>>> We may term these accidental thirds. "How did I slay thy son?" asked >>>> the >>>> merchant, and the jinnee replied, "When thou threwest away the >>>> date-stone, it smote my son, who was passing at the time, on the >>>> breast, >>>> and he died forthright." Here there were two independent facts, first >>>> that the merchant threw away the date-stone, and second that the >>>> date-stone struck and killed the jinnee's son. Had it been aimed at >>>> him, >>>> the case would have been different; for then there would have been a >>>> relation of aiming which would have connected together the aimer, the >>>> thing aimed, and the object aimed at, in one fact. What monstrous >>>> injustice and inhumanity on the part of that jinnee to hold that poor >>>> merchant responsible for such an accident! I remember how I wept at it, >>>> as I lay in my father's arms and he first told me the story. It is >>>> certainly just that a man, even though he had no evil intention, should >>>> be held responsible for the immediate effects of his actions; but not >>>> for such as might result from them in a sporadic case here and there, >>>> but only for such as might have been guarded against by a reasonable >>>> rule of prudence. Nature herself often supplies the place of the >>>> intention of a rational agent in making a Thirdness genuine and not >>>> merely accidental; as when a spark, as third, falling into a barrel of >>>> gunpowder, as first, causes an explosion, as second. But how does >>>> nature >>>> do this? By virtue of an intelligible law according to which she acts. >>>> If two forces are combined according to the parallelogram of forces, >>>> their resultant is a real third. Yet any force may, by the >>>> parallelogram of forces, be mathematically resolved into the sum of two >>>> others, in an infinity of different ways. Such components, however, are >>>> mere creations of the mind. What is the difference? As far as one >>>> isolated event goes, there is none; the real forces are no more present >>>> in the resultant than any components that the mathematician may >>>> imagine. >>>> But what makes the real forces really there is the general law of >>>> nature >>>> which calls for them, and not for any other components of the >>>> resultant. >>>> Thus, intelligibility, or reason objectified, is what makes Thirdness >>>> genuine. >>>> >>> >>>
----------------------------- 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 .
