Thanks for elevating me to the realm of the academically enabled . No doctor I. A mere lapsed MDiv. As to your concluding question, my answer is why not? At least in the realm of dreams and musement. It seems to me that Peirce has a sense of benignity that when tied to his sense of continuity and fallibility excludes no possibility that can be proved out. Bring on the dolphins and therapy dogs. Cheers, S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Doctor Rose,****** > Thank you for your reply! **** > --**** > The quote from John Deely had an important original context because it > potentially referred to metaphysical concerns with “positive internal > characters of the subject”. **** > ---------------**** > Now, in my incredibly small experience with Peirce, I have noticed there > are times when he pays strict logical attention and times when he is more > ‘colloquial’. Sometimes the ‘colloquial’ is not just ‘ordinary discourse > itself – which I have argued elsewhere in relation to Umberto Eco ALWAYS > triumphs over philosophical discourse [which is always a mere interruption > to ‘ordinary discourse’ that always goes on to render philosophy > insignificant] – but rather refers to old style ‘metaphysics’ as he does > here. **** > ------------**** > Deely has several special [to himself] issues that would put the Peirce > quote into a completely different light possibly. One such issue is the > theological ‘soul’. Another relates to his very good book on and continuing > high regard for Martin Heidegger. I would think neither Peirce nor > Heidegger would accept literally the metaphysical connotation of “positive > internal characters of the subject”. Heidegger, in whom Deely most properly > and almost uniquely recognizes the semiotic aspect of Heidegger [something > I was lucky enough to see in Heidegger’s 1916 doctoral thesis on the > categories of John Duns Scotus whom Peirce admired]. **** > ----------------**** > Heidegger would unreservedly reject any literal reference to “internal” > and to “subject” in his “Dasein” or Being-there since it is a field of > experience presented to the human being which, as far as it is ‘known’ is > completely ‘external’ and open to be delimited by language. It would seem > to me Peirce would do the same since it seems to me that for him experience > is an undelimited whole or totality. But I could very well be wrong on this > for Peirce.**** > ----------------**** > Heidegger does recognize obscurely an unknown aspect of Dasein. But since > such a ‘thing’ is not experienced directly and is not related to language > as either ‘ordinary’ nor ‘philosophical’ discourse, it can only be > approached obliquely or asymptotically. The Heideggerian scholar William J. > Richardson SJ does this with Lacanian psychoanalysis which, it seems > anyway, Deely disapproves of. The point is, it seems with both Heidegger > and Peirce, the popular phrase “What you see is what you get” is taken in a > strict and radical sense. I think also both consider the ‘unconscious’ as a > matter of historicity being logically being teased out of the long dream of > language which completely overwhelms any one individual.**** > -----------------**** > Another issue with Deely and Heidegger related to this is Deely’s > seemingly strict separation between human consciousness, which dreams the > dream of language, and the ‘animal’ which largely does not do so. Heidegger > also separates the two but simply as an observation and method of trying to > delimit language within manageable bounds, and not because of a religious > agenda since he explicitly holds for an “atheistic methodology”. In other > words, if he had found another animal than human being he could converse > with, he would have no ideological or theological problem, being more > attuned to Nietzsche in this matter.**** > ----**** > Therefore I raise another question: “Does Peirce raise a distinct > separation between the human being as the only linguistic animal, and if > so, where, and if not, where?”**** > -----------------**** > Gary C. Moore**** > > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > *To:* Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> > *Cc:* PEIRCE-L@listserv.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:36 AM > *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] Fw: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY > LOCATION > > The wonders of Google, > > Commens Peirce Dictionary: Thirdness, Third [as a > category]<http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html>: > " > Thirdness, Third [as a category] > (see also Firstness, Secondness, Categories) > > > "Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of > indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or > predicates. Firstly come "firstnesses," or positive internal characters of > the subject in itself; secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of > one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third > subject; thirdly comes "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental > influence of one subject on another relatively to a third." ('Pragmatism', > CP 5.469, 1907)" > > 'via Blog > this'<https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk> > > I didn't realize that Steven was quoting this in his most interesting post. > > Cheers. S > *ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > *From:* Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> > *To:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <stevenzen...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:14 AM > *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION > > Thank you! I was expecting more. But it just seems to be passing > phraseology. > GCM > > *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <stevenzen...@gmail.com> > *To:* Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:09 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION > > > It's there, second sentence of the second paragraph. > > > Steven > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Gary Moore wrote: > > > Dear Doctor Ericsson-Zenith, > > Thank you for the reply! However, unless my brain is far too fuzy, I do > not find John Deely's quotation "the positive internal characters of the > subject in itself". Did Doctor Deely misquote? Did the quote come from > elsewhere? > > ----- > > It is an intriguing statement possibly subtantualizing both "internal" > and "subject" which, in Deely and Poinsot's terminology would mean they are > foundational terminals in a Peircean Triad would it not? > > ----- > > Does anyone have suggestions, referrences, or information? > > > > Thank you for your consideration, > > Gary C. Moore > > > > P. S. If I have done anything improper please tell me. I am new to the > group. > > From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <stevenzen...@gmail.com> > > To: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:12 AM > > Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION > > > > FYI > > > > CP 5.469 This illustration has much more pertinence to pragmatism than > appears at first sight; since my researches into the logic of relatives > have shown beyond all sane doubt that in one respect combinations of > concepts exhibit a remarkable analogy with chemical combinations; every > concept having a strict valency. (This must be taken to mean that of > several forms of expression that are logically equivalent, that one or ones > whose analytical accuracy is least open to question, owing to the > introduction of the relation of joint identity, follows the law of > valency.) Thus, the predicate "is blue" is univalent, the predicate "kills" > is bivalent (for the direct and indirect objects are, grammar aside, as > much subjects as is the subject nominative); the predicate "gives" is > trivalent, since A gives B to C, etc. Just as the valency of chemistry is > an atomic character, so indecomposable concepts may be bivalent or > trivalent. Indeed, definitions being scrupulously observed, it will be seen > to be a truism to assert that no compound of univalent and bivalent > concepts alone can be trivalent, although a compound of any concept with a > trivalent concept can have at pleasure, a valency higher or lower by one > than that of the former concept. Less obvious, yet demonstrable, is the > fact that no indecomposable concept has a higher valency. Among my papers > are actual analyses of a number greater than I care to state. They are > mostly more complex than would be supposed. Thus, the relation between the > four bonds of an unsymmetrical carbon atom consists of twenty-four triadic > relations. > > > > Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of > indecomposable concepts correspond three classes of characters or > predicates. Firstly come "firstnesses," or positive internal characters of > the subject in itself; secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of > one subject or substance on another, regardless of law or of any third > subject; thirdly comes "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental > influence of one subject on another relatively to a third. Since the > demonstration of this proposition is too stiff for the infantile logic of > our time (which is rapidly awakening, however), I have preferred to state > it problematically, as a surmise to be verified by observation. The little > that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that matter, to any other > department of philosophy), has been entirely the fruit of this outgrowth > from formal logic, and is worth much more than the small sum total of the > rest of my work, as time will show. > > > > Steven > > > > -- > > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Gary Moore wrote: > > > > > To whom it may concern, > > > In John Deely's FOUR AGES OF UNDERSTANDING page 647 he quotes Peirce > as saying "the positive internal characters of the subject in itself" > [footnote 109 Peirce c. 1906: CP 5.469]. > > > ------------- > > > I only have the two volumes of THE ESSENTIAL PEIRCE and cannot locate > it. > > > > > > Gary C Moore > > > P O Box 5081 > > > Midland, Texas 79704 > > > gottlos752...@yahoo.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the > PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
