[PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Gary Richmond]

Iris, List,

I've been reflecting on your thoughts on the Pragmatic Trivium as I
referred to it, but held off responding before others had had a chance. My
remarks will no doubt reflect some of the responses to your comments by
others and, indeed, because of that I'll keep them somewhat general unless
more specificity is called for.

You wrote: ". . .it's easier to ask questions about the pragmatic trivium
as it relates to today's world than to find satisfying answers in Peirce's
writings. But that's not to say that there aren't valuable ideas in those
writings."


I would tend to agree with both these sentences. Regarding the first: I
suppose one could say that it's harder to search for answers and for keys
to answers to the problems of the modern world in *many* a past
philosopher's reflections on the pragmatic trivium. This is the case, I
think, regarding the ancient Greeks as well as Kant, Bentham, John Stuard
Mill, William James, Josiah Royce and, of course, Peirce and many others.
It may be especially difficult in regard to Peirce; for while he certainly
wrote much on all three, the material on esthetics and ethics especially
are spread out throughout his voluminous work, much of which remains in
manuscript.

But there are indeed "valuable ideas" of potential value to our world in
the writings of all these thinkers and, again, there are plenty of these in
Peirce applicable to the humanities, arts and sciences. Still, by way of
example, Gary Fuhrman's post of yesterday, July 4th, contains several
quotations which suggest some of these "valuable ideas" which might yet
find application in the post-modern world we inhabit. Your class project on
race, Iris, suggests an promising approach -- juxtaposing Peirce's thinking
(in your project, on race) with that of a contemporary thinker -- one which
could be generalized.

While most attention in the late 20th and early 21st century has been
directed to his logic as semeiotic, and for good reason, there are
important inquiries now being made in his esthetics and ethics. And note
that I just spelled esthetics as Peirce did to designate a cenocopic
(philosophical) *science. *He tentatively concludes that the summum bonum
in *science *is the growth of "concrete reasonableness." Our *scientific
ethics* ought to be directed to increasing *that* growth of concrete
reasonableness. (And, as Peirce saw it, good logic takes a fundamental
principle ethics, from *improving *conduct -- good scientific conduct, that
is -- and so directs itself toward *improving *thinking*.*)

This is not at all to suggest that the humanities and the arts ought not
have their own *summa bona* (and I'm drafting a post taking up the
aesthetician and philosopher of mind, Suzanne Langer's, aesthetic theory in
a separate post). However, I believe that a lot of confusion has arisen
when Peirce's scientific esthetics, ethics, and logic have been conflated
with the aesthetics, ethics, and logics of the arts and humanities. These
surely *can* draw from principles of the pragmatic trivium, but they have
and indeed *must* explore their own aesthetics, ethics, and logics. And
vice versa: the principles of, say, the aesthetics or logics of the arts
don't *necessarily* transfer to science.

You also commented on "Jon Alan Schmidt's interesting reflections on
liberal education. As someone who has spent her life in academia, I am
puzzled at Jon's account of the difference between teaching ("establishing
and maintaining a preferred narrative") and learning ("seeking and
reporting accurate information")."


I too was puzzled at Jon's distinction between teaching and learning quoted
directly above and for the reason you gave: "Neither of these begins to
account for the focus on ethics that has dominated in the humanities for
the last forty years." But here, again, there may be differences between
the way science is taught and learned and the ways in which the humanities
are, and even if there is some overlap. Indeed, as I see it, there ought to
be.

The sharp distinction which Peirce makes -- and which was recently
mentioned by someone in this thread -- between teaching what is (fallibly)
'known' and inquiring into that which is 'not yet known' may be relevant
here (I won't rehearse it, although I will say that I think Peirce may go
too far in suggesting that these are even antagonistic).

Whatever the connection between academic teaching and learning currently
is, it seems to me that part of the work of teaching *ought* to include
instruction in *how to inquire*, *how to research*, *the conditions
necessary for creativity to flourish*, etc., both generally and as regards
specific arts, humanities, and sciences. This, I believe, is being done to
some extent in many universities.

In addition, and as you wrote: "The value of Peirce's account of inquiry
for me lies in helping students to develop their abilities to ask the best
questions and persist in those inquiries, even when the answers they find
are 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Gary Richmond]

List,

Eugene Halton, philosopher, sociologist, and educator, to whom I forwarded
the Whitman excerpt I'd earlier posted, sent me this note today:


Thanks for sending Walt's beautiful and powerful words. If only we could
have listened to them!
 Instead, we are driving driverlessly to that final destination and
destiny he described in *Democratic Vistas*:
  "I say of all this tremendous and dominant play of solely
materialistic bearings upon current life in the United States, with the
results as already seen, accumulating, and reaching far into the future,
that they must either be confronted and met by at least an equally subtle
and tremendous force-infusion for purposes of spiritualization, for the
pure conscience, for genuine esthetics, and for absolute and primal
manliness and womanliness—or else our modern civilization, with all its
improvements, is in vain, and we are on the road to a destiny, a status,
equivalent, in its real world, to that of the fabled damned."

 Whitman breathed freedom, and one can see how he was an inspiration
for James; still, "forerunner" to pragmatism seems too confining to me.
Though I assume James didn't mean it that way.


Best,

Gary R

"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 4:00 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> "Occasionally in his lectures on pragmatism, James suggests that Whitman is
> a pragmatist forerunner; and in fact he frequently draws upon Whitman to
> make arguments for the pluralistic worldview that for James went hand in
> hand with the philosophy of pragmatism." See:
>
> *https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572=wwqr
> *
>
> Also:
>
> *https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1693=wwqr
> *
>
> I'm not sure how 'pragmatic' this particular poem is, but it came to me
> today on the American Independence Day (which yet left millions in slavery
> which contradiction finally led to the American Civil War). I thought I'd
> share it in the context of Whitman's view of him as "a pragmatist
> forerunner."
>
>
> *This is what you shall do*
> by Walt Whitman
>
>
> "This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals,
> despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid
> and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not
> concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off
> your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go
> freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the
> mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of
> every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or
> church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your
> very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in
> its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the
> lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body."
>
>  "This is what you shall do..." by Walt Whitman, from the preface of *Leaves
> of Grass*. Public domain.
> Best,
>
> Gary R
> "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:03 PM Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> List,
>>
>> In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" (
>> https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb), Frank Bruni reflects on something I've
>> been informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for years;
>> namely, that "A society without a grounding in ethics, self-reflection,
>> empathy and beauty is one that has lost its way” (Brian Rosenberg, recently 
>> president
>> of Macalester College). It seems to me that this has happened in the
>> United States.
>>
>> It has long seemed to me that America today has largely abandoned what
>> might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic --
>> Peirce's three Normative Sciences, *not* the classical trivium (for
>> which see Sister Miriam Joseph
>> 's 2002 book, *The
>> Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric*) that he
>> generalized to serve as the three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.
>>
>> This philosophical trivium points to the possible *application *of
>> Peirce's three Normative Sciences -- not their theoretical forms, but
>> rather their ordinary and potentially pragmatic guises as they appear in
>> life practice, including reflection and action upon what is beautiful in
>> art and nature, what is ethical in our behavior in the world, and how we
>> can apply 'critical commonsenseism' in 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Gary Richmond]

List,

"Occasionally in his lectures on pragmatism, James suggests that Whitman is
a pragmatist forerunner; and in fact he frequently draws upon Whitman to
make arguments for the pluralistic worldview that for James went hand in
hand with the philosophy of pragmatism." See:

*https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572=wwqr
*

Also:

*https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1693=wwqr
*

I'm not sure how 'pragmatic' this particular poem is, but it came to me
today on the American Independence Day (which yet left millions in slavery
which contradiction finally led to the American Civil War). I thought I'd
share it in the context of Whitman's view of him as "a pragmatist
forerunner."


*This is what you shall do*
by Walt Whitman


"This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise
riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and
crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not
concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off
your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go
freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the
mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of
every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or
church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your
very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in
its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the
lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body."

 "This is what you shall do..." by Walt Whitman, from the preface of *Leaves
of Grass*. Public domain.
Best,

Gary R
"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:03 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" (
> https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb), Frank Bruni reflects on something I've
> been informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for years;
> namely, that "A society without a grounding in ethics, self-reflection,
> empathy and beauty is one that has lost its way” (Brian Rosenberg, recently 
> president
> of Macalester College). It seems to me that this has happened in the
> United States.
>
> It has long seemed to me that America today has largely abandoned what
> might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic --
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences, *not* the classical trivium (for which
> see Sister Miriam Joseph
> 's 2002 book, *The
> Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric*) that he
> generalized to serve as the three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.
>
> This philosophical trivium points to the possible *application *of
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences -- not their theoretical forms, but
> rather their ordinary and potentially pragmatic guises as they appear in
> life practice, including reflection and action upon what is beautiful in
> art and nature, what is ethical in our behavior in the world, and how we
> can apply 'critical commonsenseism' in our quotidian lives. Bruni writes:
> "We need writers, philosophers, historians. They’ll be the ones to chart
> the social, cultural and political challenges of this pandemic -- and of
> all the other dynamics that have pushed the United States so harrowingly
> close to the edge. In terms of restoring faith in the American project and
> reseeding common ground, they’re beyond essential."
>
> Bruni's op-ed reflection came in part in response to a recent article by
> Rosenberg in *The Chronicle of Higher Education*; see "How Should
> Colleges Prepare for a Post-Pandemic World" (
> https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Should-Colleges-Prepare/248507).
> Rosenberg writes: “If one were to invent a crisis uniquely and
> diabolically designed to undermine the foundations of traditional colleges
> and universities, it might look very much like the current global
> pandemic.” In a similar vein, Professor Andrew Belbanco, president of the
> Teagle Foundation which gives as its purpose promoting the liberal arts,
> writes: “This is not only a public health crisis and an economic crisis,
> though Lord knows it’s both of those. It’s also a values crisis. It
> raises all kinds of deep human questions: What are our responsibilities to
> other people? Does representative democracy work? How do we get to a place
> where something like bipartisanship could emerge again?”
>
> Commenting on the economic divide of the American university, Bruni notes
> that "the already pronounced divide between richly endowed, largely
> residential schools and more 

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we
can call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the
second stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop
habits of organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of
Secondness to actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to
reproduce as types [whether as chemical molecules or as cells]. 

Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be
a final state of pure habits. 

Edwina
 On Fri 26/06/20  2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
sent:
Edwina,

With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the
opinion that we can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its
true nature.  

I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain
religious expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.  
What I did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:

We exist in time, which is thesecond stageof cosmological evolution,
that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and
diversity (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws
and habits develop and become more and more regular. What was
originally spontaneity becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to
arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101).


It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach. 
best,

Auke
Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky : 
Auke, list

Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
process.

My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course
reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the
anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also
uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term
overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency,
predetermined goals, interventionism, etc. 

But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one
of Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within
individual particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite
entities, will always be undergoing dissipation [unless time also
stops] . My understanding of the final stage is instead, 'the
complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and
the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 6.201. This
refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would
become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the
formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy
close" But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a
certain amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would
be dead" 6.148. 

Edwina
  On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
sent:
John,

A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp [1]

A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks
on Peirce's conception of God. 

In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less
feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:

1. The quality of the artwork in itself

2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings

3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant
thought.
and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case
study. 
best,

Auke
 Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" : 
Iris and Jerry R,

The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving ethics
from esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and
logic to such a great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would
seem trivial by comparison, at least to himself.   But before
claiming that Peirce was incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we
should compare his writings to someone who was more competent.  Who
might that be? 

Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was
incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the
esthetically good?" In some ways, I think he might be right: it's
easier to ask questions about the pragmatic trivium as it relates to
today's world than to find satisfying answers in Peirce's writings.

Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest philosophers of
all time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone found answers
about the normative sciences that are more satisfying than Peirce's? 
Who? 

CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative sciences,
of
  which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by Esthetics
and Ethics. It is
  now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound Schiller's
Aesthetische
  Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every afternoon
for 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Auke van Breemen]

Edwina,

With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the opinion that we 
can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its true nature.  

I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain religious 
expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.   What I did value in 
Peirce's estimate is this fragment:

We exist in time, which is thesecond stageof cosmological evolution, that 
ofthirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and diversity (spontaneity 
and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws and habits develop and become more 
and more regular. What was originally spontaneity becomes law. But new 
spontaneities continue to arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 
1931-1935, 6.101). 

It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach. 


best,

Auke


Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :



> 
> Auke, list
> 
> Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic 
> process.
> 
> My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course reflects 
> my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the anthropomorphic 
> transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also uses to refer to 'god' 
> ] to the term of 'God', which is a term overloaded with anthropomorphic 
> meanings, including agency, predetermined goals, interventionism, etc.
> 
> But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one of 
> Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within individual 
> particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite entities, will always be 
> undergoing dissipation [unless time also stops] . My understanding of the 
> final stage is instead, 'the complete induration of habit reducing the free 
> play of feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 
> 6.201. This refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would 
> become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the formation of 
> new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy close" But - Peirce 
> reminds us that 'There always remains a certain amount of spontaneity in its 
> action, without which it would be dead" 6.148.
> 
> Edwina
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
> 
> > > 
> > John,
> > 
> > A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at: 
> > http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
> > 
> > A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine 
> > remarks on Peirce's conception of God.
> > 
> > In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less 
> > feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:
> > 
> > 1. The quality of the artwork in itself
> > 
> > 2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings
> > 
> > 3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant 
> > thought.
> > 
> > 
> > and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case 
> > study.
> > 
> > 
> > best,
> > 
> > Auke
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Iris and Jerry R,
> > > 
> > > The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving 
> > > ethics from esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and 
> > > logic to such a great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would seem 
> > > trivial by comparison, at least to himself.   But before claiming that 
> > > Peirce was incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we should compare his 
> > > writings to someone who was more competent.  Who might that be?
> > > 
> > > Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was 
> > > incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically 
> > > good?" In some ways, I think he might be right: it's easier to ask 
> > > questions about the pragmatic trivium as it relates to today's world than 
> > > to find satisfying answers in Peirce's writings.
> > > 
> > > Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest 
> > > philosophers of all time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone 
> > > found answers about the normative sciences that are more satisfying than 
> > > Peirce's?  Who?
> > > 
> > > CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative 
> > > sciences, of
> > > which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by 
> > > Esthetics and Ethics. It is
> > > now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound 
> > > Schiller's Aesthetische
> > > Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every 
> > > afternoon for long
> > > months upon it, picking the matter to pieces as well as we 
> > > boys knew how to do.
> > > In those days, I read various works on esthetics; but on the 
> 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Auke, list

Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
process. 

My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course
reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the
anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also
uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term
overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency,
predetermined goals, interventionism, etc. 

But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one
of Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within
individual particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite
entities, will always be undergoing dissipation [unless time also
stops] . My understanding of the final stage is instead, 'the
complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and
the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 6.201. This
refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would
become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the
formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy
close" But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a
certain amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would
be dead" 6.148. 

Edwina
 On Fri 26/06/20  7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
sent:
John,

A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp [1]

A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks
on Peirce's conception of God.

In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less
feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:

1. The quality of the artwork in itself 

2. the way in which (or adequacy) it  expresses qualities of
feelings

3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant
thought.
and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case
study.
best,

Auke
 Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" : 
Iris and Jerry R,

The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving ethics
from esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and
logic to such a great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would
seem trivial by comparison, at least to himself.   But before
claiming that Peirce was incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we
should compare his writings to someone who was more competent.  Who
might that be? 

Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was
incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the
esthetically good?" In some ways, I think he might be right: it's
easier to ask questions about the pragmatic trivium as it relates to
today's world than to find satisfying answers in Peirce's writings.

Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest philosophers of
all time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone found answers
about the normative sciences that are more satisfying than Peirce's? 
Who? 

CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative sciences,
of
 which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by Esthetics
and Ethics. It is
 now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound Schiller's
Aesthetische
 Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every afternoon
for long
 months upon it, picking the matter to pieces as well as we boys knew
how to do.
 In those days, I read various works on esthetics; but on the whole,
I must confess
 that, like most logicians, I have pondered that subject far too
little. The books do
 seem so feeble.

CP has 129 passages about esthetics.  He said that he read various
works on the subject, but he found those books "so feeble". 

Can anyone point to books that are not "feeble" according to the
standards that Peirce set for himself?

John_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
 ► 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 [2] . 
 ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.   


Links:
--
[1] http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
[2] 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Auke van Breemen]

John,

A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at: 
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp

A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks on 
Peirce's conception of God.

In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less feeble only 
if three aspects are explicated in the study:

1. The quality of the artwork in itself

2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings

3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant thought.


and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case study.


best,

Auke




> Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
> 
> 
> Iris and Jerry R,
> 
> The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving ethics from 
> esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and logic to such a 
> great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would seem trivial by 
> comparison, at least to himself.   But before claiming that Peirce was 
> incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we should compare his writings to 
> someone who was more competent.  Who might that be?
> 
> Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was incompetent for 
> the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically good?" In some ways, I 
> think he might be right: it's easier to ask questions about the pragmatic 
> trivium as it relates to today's world than to find satisfying answers in 
> Peirce's writings.
> 
> Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest philosophers of all 
> time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone found answers about the 
> normative sciences that are more satisfying than Peirce's?  Who?
> 
> CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative sciences, of
> which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by Esthetics and 
> Ethics. It is
> now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound Schiller's 
> Aesthetische
> Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every afternoon for long
> months upon it, picking the matter to pieces as well as we boys knew how 
> to do.
> In those days, I read various works on esthetics; but on the whole, I 
> must confess
> that, like most logicians, I have pondered that subject far too little. 
> The books do
> seem so feeble.
> 
> CP has 129 passages about esthetics.  He said that he read various works 
> on the subject, but he found those books "so feeble". 
> 
> Can anyone point to books that are not "feeble" according to the 
> standards that Peirce set for himself?
> 
> John
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[John F. Sowa]

Iris and Jerry R,
The question of what Peirce knew or thought
about deriving ethics from esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues
of science and logic to such a great depth, that his knowledge of
esthetics would seem trivial by comparison, at least to himself.   But
before claiming that Peirce was incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we
should compare his writings to someone who was more competent.  Who might
that be? 
Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that
Peirce was
incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically
good?" In some ways, I think he might be right: it's easier to ask
questions about the pragmatic trivium as it relates to today's world
than to find satisfying answers in Peirce's writings.
Yes. 
Questions are very important.  The greatest philosophers of all time have
been asking such questions.  Has anyone found answers about the normative
sciences that are more satisfying than Peirce's?  Who? 
CP 2.197>
We shall next take up the logic of the normative sciences, of
which
logic itself is only the third, being preceded by Esthetics and Ethics. It
is
now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound Schiller's
Aesthetische
Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every
afternoon for long
months upon it, picking the matter to pieces as
well as we boys knew how to do.
In those days, I read various works
on esthetics; but on the whole, I must confess
that, like most
logicians, I have pondered that subject far too little. The books do
seem so feeble.
CP has 129 passages about esthetics.  He said that
he read various works on the subject, but he found those books "so
feeble". 
Can anyone point to books that are not
"feeble" according to the standards that Peirce set for
himself?
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Gary Richmond]

List,

Iris Smith Fischer, a long time member of the forum, responded off-list to
the questions I posed in this thread and some of the responses which
followed. She has kindly given me permission to forward her most
interesting responses.

Best,

Gary

I apologize for responding so late to your excellent questions of June 13.
[. . .]

As I've read through the thread, I've noted other important and valuable
questions. Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was incompetent
for the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically good?" In some
ways, I think he might be right: it's easier to ask questions about the
pragmatic trivium as it relates to today's world than to find satisfying
answers in Peirce's writings. But that's not to say that there aren't
valuable ideas in those writings, and as Jerry points out, we all have an
obligation to continue to seek answers.

The primary challenge of bringing Peirce into conversation with ethical
questions of our day seems to lie in the strictures on our own ways of
thinking, and on his. They seem to vary from response to response in the
thread. Because you framed your questions in terms of ethical challenges
facing universities and colleges, we have Jon Alan Schmidt's interesting
reflections on liberal education. As someone who has spent her life in
academia, I am puzzled at Jon's account of the difference between teaching
("establishing and maintaining a preferred narrative") and learning
("seeking and reporting accurate information"). Neither of these begins to
account for the focus on ethics that has dominated in the humanities for
the last forty years. The value of Peirce's account of inquiry for me lies
in helping students to develop their abilities to ask the best questions
and persist in those inquiries, even when the answers they find are
tentative or contradictory to their initial assumptions. The best and most
productive sessions have occurred when I have juxtaposed for students the
perspectives on, say, race that Peirce offers in his account of using
abduction to track down and recover his stolen watch and coat (rendered
vividly by Tom Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok in their article "You Know My
Method," published in *The Sign of Three*) with the account of racialized
thinking in, say, Ta-Nehisi Coates's book *Between the World and Me*. It's
an uncomfortable conversation, no doubt about it. But that's the sort of
challenge we in Peirce studies have to face. And, whatever Peirce's own
racial attitudes were, the value of his concept of abduction still stands
after such a conversation, I've found.

In relation to Edwina Taborsky's comment that "I always felt that a key
course for college and university students would have been ongoing courses
in critical thinking, to enable them to think through fallacious arguments,
false statistics and etc", I'm happy to report that such courses have been
 taught on a regular basis for many years, in many universities. In my own
(English) department such approaches dominate our freshman composition
courses, and courses on critical thinking have been required for our majors
and graduate students, my own among them. Weaving (or at least attempting
to weave) Peirce's ideas into those courses has been one of the most
interesting and rewarding challenges of my teaching. Perhaps you're right;
more hands-on interaction with Peirce's critical commonsenseism  might
offer one way forward.

Thanks for listening,
Iris

Iris Smith Fischer
Professor Emerita
University of Kansas

"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:03 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" (
> https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb), Frank Bruni reflects on something I've
> been informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for years;
> namely, that "A society without a grounding in ethics, self-reflection,
> empathy and beauty is one that has lost its way” (Brian Rosenberg, recently 
> president
> of Macalester College). It seems to me that this has happened in the
> United States.
>
> It has long seemed to me that America today has largely abandoned what
> might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic --
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences, *not* the classical trivium (for which
> see Sister Miriam Joseph
> 's 2002 book, *The
> Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric*) that he
> generalized to serve as the three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.
>
> This philosophical trivium points to the possible *application *of
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences -- not their theoretical forms, but
> rather their ordinary and potentially pragmatic guises as they appear in
> life practice, including reflection and action upon what is beautiful in
> art 

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Helmut Raulien]

 

 
Supplement: At the end of my post I meant "utilitarist maxim", not "universalist maxim".
Jerry, List,


 

I am sure, that waiting for the action of others does not mean not doing and thinking anything while waiting. The professor is talking to young students, so he puts the esteem on them, but he does not superestimate them over his own age group.

An esthetical or ethical sign has two objects, or better, an object blended of two aspects, one from the self and one from the external world. The self-part is integrity of all identities one has. The external part is somehow affecting this integrity. If the integrity is threatened by it, the interpretant contains ugliness or ethical badness. If the integrity is stabilized or even widened, the interpretant contains beauty or ethical goodness. The sign/representamen also shows these two aspects internal and external. To call them proprioception and exteroception would mean to have to include into these concepts not only the bodily but also at the mental aspects of self and environment.


The set of identities of a person consists of all particular and universal traits and capacities one has. Sin, I think, is ignorance of some of them, like e.g. the human identity, the life identity, the universal identity, and the superestimation of particular ones, e.g. ego, gender, class, nation. But sin works the other way too, e.g. ignorance of the ego in favour of one´s religion to become a suicide bomber, or ignorance of one´s class or peer group to become a traitor. But with these latter two examples, universal identies, like humanity, have to be ignored as well, I think.

 

One might argue: Are these two aspects (self and environment) not merely necessary for esthetics, while ethics may be objective, having nothing to do with the self? I don´t think so, e.g the categorical imperative includes own interest. But the universalist *no, I meant utilitarist* maxim does too, I think, because it only can play a role for somebody who has responsibilty -as an identity of the self-, and to show that everybody has responsibility there is categorical impereative again.

 

Best,

 

Helmut

 

14. Juni 2020 um 22:55 Uhr
 "Jerry Rhee" 
wrote:



Dear list,

 

I have tried to stay quiet but this statement really offends me:

 

“So now I will tell you what nobody has told you before this; 

that we older folks are waiting for you.”

 

It is as though the older folk have forgotten their obligation to address the following criticism:

 

'Why doth he not come who hath so long announced himself?' 

thus do many people ask; 

'hath solitude swallowed him up? Or should we perhaps go to him?'

For

There are Two Causes of Sin, Ignorance and Weakness;
And We need Divine Help to Overcome Both 

 

There are two causes that lead to sin:
either we do not yet know our duty,
or we do not perform the duty that we know.

___

 

All this talk about esthetics ethics logic and normative sciences.. 

Is it not obvious that Peirce was incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically good?  

For if he had, then it would be just as obvious that we would recognize and communicate it.  

For are we not, already, the moral community?
I mean, what other reason is there for the surprising fact, that

 

America today has largely abandoned what might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic -- Peirce's three Normative Sciences

 

To the question, then, for 

"Why then had it not been put to its serious use?" 

No reason can be given, except that the motive to do so was not strong enough.
The motives to doing so could only have been desire for gain and philanthropy.

 

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, 

or the Greatest Happiness Principle, 

holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, 

wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. 

By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; 

by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.  

The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain motivate all our actions.

 

The initial question,
“Why does cognition sometimes lead to action and sometimes not?”
should be understood to demand the answer that the syllogistic examples will provide: because sometimes there are present both a desire for the apprehended goal and a cognitive specification of what must be done if the goal is to be reached, and sometimes not.

 

“as I was saying all along, in respect to these matters I go astray, up and down, and never hold the same opinion; and that I, or any other ordinary man, go astray is not surprising; 

 

but if you wise men likewise go astray, that is a terrible thing for us also, 

if even when we have come to you we are not to cease from our straying.”

 

From A Little Known Argument for the Being of God to A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God

 

So that this is not yet ‘another’ kind of criticism put forth by the likes 

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Helmut Raulien]

Jerry, List,

 

I am sure, that waiting for the action of others does not mean not doing and thinking anything while waiting. The professor is talking to young students, so he puts the esteem on them, but he does not superestimate them over his own age group.

An esthetical or ethical sign has two objects, or better, an object blended of two aspects, one from the self and one from the external world. The self-part is integrity of all identities one has. The external part is somehow affecting this integrity. If the integrity is threatened by it, the interpretant contains ugliness or ethical badness. If the integrity is stabilized or even widened, the interpretant contains beauty or ethical goodness. The sign/representamen also shows these two aspects internal and external. To call them proprioception and exteroception would mean to have to include into these concepts not only the bodily but also at the mental aspects of self and environment.


The set of identities of a person consists of all particular and universal traits and capacities one has. Sin, I think, is ignorance of some of them, like e.g. the human identity, the life identity, the universal identity, and the superestimation of particular ones, e.g. ego, gender, class, nation. But sin works the other way too, e.g. ignorance of the ego in favour of one´s religion to become a suicide bomber, or ignorance of one´s class or peer group to become a traitor. But with these latter two examples, universal identies, like humanity, have to be ignored as well, I think.

 

One might argue: Are these two aspects (self and environment) not merely necessary for esthetics, while ethics may be objective, having nothing to do with the self? I don´t think so, e.g the categorical imperative includes own interest. But the universalist maxim does too, I think, because it only can play a role for somebody who has responsibilty -as an identity of the self-, and to show that everybody has responsibility there is categorical impereative again.

 

Best,

 

Helmut

 

14. Juni 2020 um 22:55 Uhr
 "Jerry Rhee" 
wrote:



Dear list,

 

I have tried to stay quiet but this statement really offends me:

 

“So now I will tell you what nobody has told you before this; 

that we older folks are waiting for you.”

 

It is as though the older folk have forgotten their obligation to address the following criticism:

 

'Why doth he not come who hath so long announced himself?' 

thus do many people ask; 

'hath solitude swallowed him up? Or should we perhaps go to him?'

For

There are Two Causes of Sin, Ignorance and Weakness;
And We need Divine Help to Overcome Both 

 

There are two causes that lead to sin:
either we do not yet know our duty,
or we do not perform the duty that we know.

___

 

All this talk about esthetics ethics logic and normative sciences.. 

Is it not obvious that Peirce was incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically good?  

For if he had, then it would be just as obvious that we would recognize and communicate it.  

For are we not, already, the moral community?
I mean, what other reason is there for the surprising fact, that

 

America today has largely abandoned what might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic -- Peirce's three Normative Sciences

 

To the question, then, for 

"Why then had it not been put to its serious use?" 

No reason can be given, except that the motive to do so was not strong enough.
The motives to doing so could only have been desire for gain and philanthropy.

 

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, 

or the Greatest Happiness Principle, 

holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, 

wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. 

By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; 

by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.  

The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain motivate all our actions.

 

The initial question,
“Why does cognition sometimes lead to action and sometimes not?”
should be understood to demand the answer that the syllogistic examples will provide: because sometimes there are present both a desire for the apprehended goal and a cognitive specification of what must be done if the goal is to be reached, and sometimes not.

 

“as I was saying all along, in respect to these matters I go astray, up and down, and never hold the same opinion; and that I, or any other ordinary man, go astray is not surprising; 

 

but if you wise men likewise go astray, that is a terrible thing for us also, 

if even when we have come to you we are not to cease from our straying.”

 

From A Little Known Argument for the Being of God to A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God

 

So that this is not yet ‘another’ kind of criticism put forth by the likes of Mrs. Bell to Emerson, 

I would demand of the older folk, then, to 

 

summarize the article in a concluding page or 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



I have tried to stay quiet but this statement really offends me:



“So now I will tell you what nobody has told you before this;

*that we older folks are waiting for you*.”



It is as though the older folk have forgotten their obligation to address
the following criticism:



'Why doth he not come who hath so long announced himself?'

thus do many people ask;

'hath solitude swallowed him up? Or should we perhaps go to him?'

For

There are Two Causes of Sin, Ignorance and Weakness;
And We need Divine Help to Overcome Both



There are two causes that lead to sin:
either we do not yet know our duty,
or we do not perform the duty that we know.

___



All this talk about esthetics ethics logic and normative sciences..

Is it not obvious that Peirce was incompetent for the task imposed upon him
of defining the esthetically good?

For if he had, then it would be just as obvious that we would recognize and
communicate it.

For are we not, *already*, the moral community?
I mean, what other reason is there for the surprising fact, that



America today has largely abandoned what might be called the normative
trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic -- Peirce's three Normative
Sciences



To the question, then, for

"*Why then had it not been put to its serious use?"*

No reason can be given, except that the motive to do so was not strong
enough.
The motives to doing so could *only* have been desire for gain and
philanthropy.



*The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, *

*or the Greatest Happiness Principle, *

*holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, *

*wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. *

*By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; *

*by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.  *

*The pursuit of pleasure and *the avoidance of pain* motivate all our
actions.*



*The initial question,*
*“Why does cognition sometimes lead to action and sometimes not?”*
*should be understood to demand the answer that the syllogistic examples
will provide: because sometimes there are present both a desire for the
apprehended goal and a cognitive specification of what must be done if the
goal is to be reached, and sometimes not.*



“as I was saying all along, in respect to these matters I go astray, up and
down, and never hold the same opinion; and that I, or any other ordinary
man, go astray is not surprising;



but if you wise men likewise go astray, that is a terrible thing for us
also,

if even when we have come to you we are not to cease from our straying.”



*From A Little Known Argument for the Being of God to A Neglected Argument
for the Reality of God*



So that this is not yet ‘another’ kind of criticism put forth by the likes
of Mrs. Bell to Emerson,

I would demand of the older folk, then, to



*summarize the article in a concluding page or two, to be added to the
article, in order to forestall careless cavillers who might say, *

*Œwhat, then, precisely, is your neglected argument?'"*





With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 1:24 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> My good friend, Joseph Dauben, Distinguished Professor at the Graduate
> Center of The City University of New York/Lehman College, whose research
> interests include History of Science and History of Mathematics, wrote in
> response to my initial post in this thread:
>
> Many thanks for your very insightful observations. When I read what you've
> written, I immediately thought of the graduation speech E.L. Doctorow
> gave at his own alma mater, the Bronx HS of Science, a few years ago. You
> may well already have seen this, but if not, I think you’ll find what he
> had to say of interest.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/nyregion/el-doctorow-graduation-speech-bronx-science.html
>
>
> While the entire piece is of interest (in a subsequent email, Joe remarked
> how he ". . . especially liked how Doctorow foiled the chemistry class
> experiment. He really wasn't so bad at chemistry after all!"), I've
> excerpted a quote from its conclusion as being of particular relevance to
> this thread. Doctorow writes:
>
> I’m thinking now of the principal at Science in my day, Dr. Morris Meister
> .
> I remember that he said about scientific knowledge that in the passage of
> time, it was like a searchlight beam expanding and lighting up more and
> more of the darkness. But as it did, he said, so did the circumference of
> darkness expand. That’s a pretty good line, don’t you think? As the light
> spreads out so does it discern more and more of the darkness. Actually this
> may have been said first by Albert Einstein, but no matter.
>
> The human quest for knowledge, for knowing everything there is to know,
> will always face that expanding circumference of darkness. That is what
> makes learning such an 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Gary Richmond]

List,

In an off-list note Fernando Zalamea, Philosopher and Historian of
Mathematics at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogata wrote (omitting
just the personal part of the message):

Hi Gary,

[. . .]

Very important text that you sent to the List.

On my side, responding a little to your query, I will be participating in a
beautiful initiative of a mathematical colleague (Mirna Dzamonja).

See her page of a “Solidarity” conference:
https://mdzamonja.wixsite.com/solidarityconference

The schedule is not yet finished (22-26 June). Abstract of my Peircean
presentation in image attached.

Take much care, Fernando.

The conference as a whole sounds most interesting. Here's Fernando's
Abstract of the talk he'll be giving:

Abstract: We will apply Peirce's Pragmatic(ist) Maxim and some tools of
Category Theory to offer a differential/integral, local/global
understanding of the "Solidarity" problem.

"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*








Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:03 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" (
> https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb), Frank Bruni reflects on something I've
> been informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for years;
> namely, that "A society without a grounding in ethics, self-reflection,
> empathy and beauty is one that has lost its way” (Brian Rosenberg, recently 
> president
> of Macalester College). It seems to me that this has happened in the
> United States.
>
> It has long seemed to me that America today has largely abandoned what
> might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and logic --
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences, *not* the classical trivium (for which
> see Sister Miriam Joseph
> 's 2002 book, *The
> Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric*) that he
> generalized to serve as the three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.
>
> This philosophical trivium points to the possible *application *of
> Peirce's three Normative Sciences -- not their theoretical forms, but
> rather their ordinary and potentially pragmatic guises as they appear in
> life practice, including reflection and action upon what is beautiful in
> art and nature, what is ethical in our behavior in the world, and how we
> can apply 'critical commonsenseism' in our quotidian lives. Bruni writes:
> "We need writers, philosophers, historians. They’ll be the ones to chart
> the social, cultural and political challenges of this pandemic -- and of
> all the other dynamics that have pushed the United States so harrowingly
> close to the edge. In terms of restoring faith in the American project and
> reseeding common ground, they’re beyond essential."
>
> Bruni's op-ed reflection came in part in response to a recent article by
> Rosenberg in *The Chronicle of Higher Education*; see "How Should
> Colleges Prepare for a Post-Pandemic World" (
> https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Should-Colleges-Prepare/248507).
> Rosenberg writes: “If one were to invent a crisis uniquely and
> diabolically designed to undermine the foundations of traditional colleges
> and universities, it might look very much like the current global
> pandemic.” In a similar vein, Professor Andrew Belbanco, president of the
> Teagle Foundation which gives as its purpose promoting the liberal arts,
> writes: “This is not only a public health crisis and an economic crisis,
> though Lord knows it’s both of those. It’s also a values crisis. It
> raises all kinds of deep human questions: What are our responsibilities to
> other people? Does representative democracy work? How do we get to a place
> where something like bipartisanship could emerge again?”
>
> Commenting on the economic divide of the American university, Bruni notes
> that "the already pronounced divide between richly endowed, largely
> residential schools and more socioeconomically diverse ones that depend on
> public funding grows wider as state and local governments face
> unprecedented financial distress. A shrinking minority of students get a
> boutique college experience. Then there’s everybody else."  Gail Mellow,
> former president of LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> (where I taught for decades before my retirement) is quoted as saying, “We
> always knew that America was moving more and more toward very different
> groups of people," to which Bruni adds, "that movement is only
> accelerating."
>
> Confronting all this will undoubtedly be one of the great challenges that
> America -- and for that