Dear list:
Here is the original pragmatic maxim that often gets treated as *the* pragmatic maxim: *It appears, then, that the rule for attaining the third grade of clearness of apprehension is as follows: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.* Is it plausible that we, critical thinkers, have not given the idea of a *best* pragmatic maxim enough of a critical working over? For instance: *If* the *goal* of a pragmatic maxim is: *It will be seen that pragmatism is not a *Weltanschauung* but is a method of reflexion having for its purpose to render ideas clear.* *Pragmaticism makes thinking to consist in the living inferential metaboly of symbols whose purport lies in the conditional general resolution to act (5.403 n.3)…* *I have long ago come to be guided by this maxim: that as long as it is practically certain that we cannot directly, nor with much accuracy even indirectly, observe what passes in the consciousness of any other person, while it is far from certain that we can do so (and accurately record what [we] can even glimpse at best but very glibberly) even in the case of what shoots through our own minds, it is much safer to define all mental characters as far as possible in terms of their outward manifestations.* *“The point of the pragmatic maxim is to relate our concepts and judgments to human conduct. The maxim is intended to single out from “the myriads of forms into which a proposition may be translated… that form in which the proposition becomes applicable to human conduct” (5.427).”* ~Richard Bernstein *then * is it not self-evident that the original maxim is not sufficient to discriminate between pragmatism and pragmaticism? It says nothing about any proposition at all, particular or general, except to refer to the conception and the process. Therefore, it merely starts the process of aiding two disputants resolve their disagreeement through clarification of meaning that improves collaboration. There is nothing there that helps prevent the walking away. If the utterer and interpreter were to seek further help in Peirce, they will need to read books and manuscripts, which require more time and energy, never mind the investment required to learn new technologies, which promote semiotic application. The use of the original maxim mainly appears to be to indicate that *all of* pragmaticism is expressible as a short statement. But that statement can be modified. Movement to a better form is possible. So, where is this statement currently? What is the strongest argument? Which is the *best* pragmatic maxim? That is, why is the original considered *the* pragmatic maxim over CP 5.189, which is, in actuality, stated as a “*normative form* of *abduction*, the *form to which abduction ought* to conform”? Which is the best maxim by which to enter pragmaticistic inquiry? “Now the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this — that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me. “ ~ *Phaedo* Best, Jerry Rhee
----------------------------- 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 .
