Dear Steven, list,
You said:
*‘seems’, ‘almost’, ‘completely’.. ‘inapplicable’.*
You must agree with me that *your* use of such terms makes *my*
interpreting *your* position on this matter extremely vague,
don’t you think?
As for
*“This is a major shortcoming, it seems to me, in Peirce, *
*a shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed”.*
To which, I must say, *meh*..
For
besides these two, each man possesses opinions about the future,
which go by the general name of “expectations”;
and of these, that which precedes pain bears the special name of “fear,”
and that which precedes pleasure the special name of “confidence”;
and in addition to all these there is “calculation,”
pronouncing which of them is good, which bad;
and “calculation,”
when it has become the public decree of the State,
is named “law.”
Hth.
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 3:26 PM Skaggs,Steven <s.ska...@louisville.edu>
wrote:
> "CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to
> be known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
> depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it
> is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value
> as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the
> existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has
> only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the
> community. (CP 5.316, EP 1:54-55, 1868)"
>
> Although this quote goes a long way toward envisioning an empirical
> process or an ontology (i.e. the process of science and an understanding
> of what and how what is is), it seems almost completely inapplicable to the
> process of making art or a poem. This is a major shortcoming, it seems to
> me, in Peirce, a shortcoming Dewey, for one, addressed.
>
> SxS
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not
> click links, open attachments, or respond unless you recognize the sender's
> email address and know the contents are safe.
> Gary F., List:
>
> I suggest that we interpret that particular statement in light of what
> comes right before it.
>
> CSP: Finally, as what anything really is, is what it may finally come to
> be known to be in the ideal state of complete information, so that reality
> depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it
> is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value
> as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the
> existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has
> only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the
> community. (CP 5.316, EP 1:54-55, 1868)
>
>
> Note that Peirce wrote the article in which these quotes appear ("Some
> Consequences of Four Incapacities") at age 28, not 18. He is contrasting
> the *individual *human, "apart from his fellows," with "the community"
> whose *collective *thought would "be in the ideal state of complete
> information" after infinite inquiry and thus would know "what anything
> really is." This is the *telos *of the ongoing process of semiosis that
> Richard Kenneth Atkins calls "cognitive welding" in his 2016 book, *Peirce
> and the Conduct of Life: Sentiment and Instinct in Ethics and Religion*.
>
> To the extent that each of us suffers from "ignorance and error," we have
> a "separate existence" from the continuum of Truth that is represented in
> existential graphs by the sheet of assertion. Again, whether this
> "negation" is "symmetrical by composition" or unsymmetrical depends on
> whether excluded middle holds, such that every proposition is either true
> or false; and Peirce states plainly, "This assumption ... I consider
> utterly unwarranted, and do not believe it" (NEM 3:758, 1893). That is why
> "Triadic Logic does not *conflict *with Dyadic Logic; only, it
> recognizes, what the latter does not" such that "Triadic Logic is
> universally true" (R 339:515[344r], 1909).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2FJonAlanSchmidt&data=04%7C01%7Cs.skaggs%40louisville.edu%7Ca9851e95184c4889a02808d8a5260402%7Cdd246e4a54344e158ae391ad9797b209%7C0%7C0%7C637440929991864586%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EeoVcaMLHaoiftefX%2F8iSR8KGPKmxVTalb7ir7IVD38%3D&reserved=0>
> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FJonAlanSchmidt&data=04%7C01%7Cs.skaggs%40louisville.edu%7Ca9851e95184c4889a02808d8a5260402%7Cdd246e4a54344e158ae391ad9797b209%7C0%7C0%7C637440929991864586%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B%2BkPRpNK75Loezk%2BqjQKS6m33UpIP8q5SZxGLLwALPc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:59 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jon Alan, I think I’m aboard this train of thought, although it’s
>> taking me into unfamiliar territory.
>>
>> I hadn’t really considered that a relation of negation can be either
>> symmetrical or asymmetrical. I wonder which case applies to this early (18)
>> remark of Peirce’s: “The individual man, since his separate existence is
>> manifested only by ignorance and error, so far as he is anything apart from
>> his fellows, and from what he and they are to be, is only a negation”
>> (EP1:55, CP 5.317). Either? Both? Neither?
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>> } Judge not, that ye be not judged. [Matthew 7:1] {
>>
>> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/
>> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnusystems.ca%2Fwp%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cs.skaggs%40louisville.edu%7Ca9851e95184c4889a02808d8a5260402%7Cdd246e4a54344e158ae391ad9797b209%7C0%7C0%7C637440929991874543%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bAm4dn9HSdmhB2U6rKBevGHr7%2BW0VuOK%2FI57DDNrEkw%3D&reserved=0>
>> }{ living the time
>>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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.
