Jon, List,
 
Peirce is not necessarily always right, is he? "For evolution is nothing more nor less than the working out of a definite end", is theism and speculation, isn´t it? One may also assume, that evolution is continuous adaption without an end. And when he wrote "A final cause may be conceived to operate without having been the purpose of any mind", had he forgotten then, that he had claimed that the universe has a mind? If it has, why should it pursue its own end? I think doomsdayism is always theistic speculation. The big chill too, like the big bang, is not scientifically proven.
I think, that evolution itself has a mind, though working quite slowly.
A better example for final cause I see in the needs of organisms, who pursue an end to these needs. Or their DNA does it for them, which is a memory of the mind of evolution of their species. Organisms who have brains apply a third kind of causation, volitional or example causation: They remember or anticipate something they want to get.
These three kinds of causation are related by analogy to the three kinds of inference.
 
Best,
 
Helmut
 
 
 23. Mai 2020 um 04:14 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Robert, List:
 
Thanks for providing this creative answer to some of my questions, which I have been pondering carefully.  It confirms that we have very different theories about semeiosis, and apparently very different interpretations of Peirce's writings on that subject.  For one thing, he explicitly and repeatedly affirms the reality of final causes, and even points to biological evolution as a paradigmatic manifestation of them.
 
CSP:  Perhaps, since phrases retain their sway over men's minds long after their meaning has evaporated, it may be that some reader, even at this day, remains imbued with the old notion that there are no final causes in nature; in which case, natural selection, and every form of evolution, would be false. For evolution is nothing more nor less than the working out of a definite end. A final cause may be conceived to operate without having been the purpose of any mind ... but that definite ends are worked out none of us today any longer deny. Our eyes have been opened; and the evidence is too overwhelming. (CP 1.204, 1902)
 
Notice that for Peirce final causes do not entail agency, theistic or otherwise.  He confirms this later in the same manuscript.
 
CSP:  It is, as I was saying, a widespread error to think that a "final cause" is necessarily a purpose. A purpose is merely that form of final cause which is most familiar to our experience. (CP 1.211)
 
However, I will not belabor that point any further.  Instead, for comparison I will try to spell out my own semeiotic analysis of my previous post, hopefully sometime this weekend.
 
Regards,
 
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Alan, List
 

I'd rather we stay on the list. I have clues that suggest that people are interested; if some are embarrassed they have no obligation ...

Today I will answer your questions using another rhetorical means, the parable ...

"parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, that illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable ) ...

I assure you, it will be prose ...

 

On 05/20/20 at a certain time, in the mind of a person living in Olathe, Kansas,USA, (the sender), a person who has well-established and known ideas from the list on the final causes, effective causes, determinations, ... a subjective theory labelled "JAS" (Od) is formed the idea of addressing questions to a member of the list in particular and also to the list (the receiver, the receivers)he imagines a series of questions (Oi) that are necessarily determined by his theory which they carry "in hollow" the mark ... he writes them and publishes them (S) its main receiver (his first name is an index perceived first) perceives this text ... in the course of his reading his mind is inhabited by more or less blurred mnemonic reminders of a large number of objects of previous discussions, more or less interconnected, mixed - as with each of the messages he received from the same sender - with this following information (index) which never ceased to amaze him: "Professional Engineer, Philosopher Amateur, Lutheran Layman".  All this has formed in his mind a kind of "interpretation guide" from which he apprehends the content of the messages received from this sender, a set to which is added the one to which I answer by the parable - under construction before my eyes and soon under yours, i e of all those who will perceive it (read it). This receiver has therefore, with more or less accuracy, conceptualized this set. He finds himself obliged, simply to have read this injunctive message, in which the sender has somehow "printed his mark", to modify or not his uncertain conceptualization in which dominates the idea of "predestination" that his studies and readings have allowed him to associate with Lutheranism (Calvinism too) and in general protestantism: It's (If)in immediate reaction in his mind is recalled his own subjective theory which contains his long-held opinions on these issues (Ie). He acquired them early by reading Jacques Monod's 1965 Nobel Prize book," Hasard and Necessity," later reinforced by reading René Thom's book, Medall Field of Mathematics (1958), entitled " Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, W. A. Benjamin, (1972)". After a quick confrontation between the two theories for a possible change in the way he considers the questions of the final causes and the efficient causes, he decides not to modify one iota and to communicate this decision to the person who asked it and to the list (Iex)  in the explicit form that here: "In his world of signs, determinations are efficient causes and there is no need to incorporate final causes that his own subjective theory and underlying atheism exclude.".

 

Best,

Robert (the receiver)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity

 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Reply via email to