[peirce-l] Re: What "fundamenal psychological laws" is Peirce referring to?

[Jacob Longshore]

Gary, Joe, Kirsti, list,

> Personally i think the contradiction is more apparent than flat. As i
> said (and i think Kirsti said the same), this is not circulum vitiosum
> but a pattern which underlies inquiry and therefore can only be itself
> investigated via a cyclical process.

I have to agree. The more I read of Peirce, the more I see loops of reasoning - 
loops, networks, call it what you will. In fact it only seems to jive with his 
thinking, especially showing itself when he gets knee-deep in relative logic. 
The circle has less to do with circular reasoning than with being able to 
define even the simplest conceptions via the logic of relations (5.207). 

A bit like the hermeneutic circle of Heidegger - the structure of meaning, and 
of Dasein itself, looping back on itself and forming a system (H. 153 of Being 
and Time). So far as I know, Heidegger never read Peirce, but they seem to be 
touching on the same thing.

Circles in reasoning must be demonstrated to be truly vicious; I'm not 
convinced that this one is.

best,
jacob


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:35:29 -0400
Von: "gnusystems" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Betreff: [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamenal psychological laws" is Peirce 
referring to?

> Joe, Kirsti, list,
> 
> [[ Well, Gary, it looks like some fancy footwork with the term "is
> rooted in" might have to be resorted to if we are to save Peirce on this
> one!  You've caught him with a flat contradiction there! ]]
> 
> Personally i think the contradiction is more apparent than flat. As i
> said (and i think Kirsti said the same), this is not circulum vitiosum
> but a pattern which underlies inquiry and therefore can only be itself
> investigated via a cyclical process.
> 
> The "social principle" is implicit in explicit (formal) logic, *and*
> logic/semeiotic is implicit in the "social principle". (Though Peirce
> would not have put it that way in 1869 or 1878.) "The social
> principle is intrinsically rooted in logic" (1869) because recognition
> of others as experiencing beings is a special case of seeing a
> difference between phenomenon and reality, or between sign and object --
> or between "soul" and "world", to use the terms Peirce uses in both of
> these passages. Logic begins with the revelation of a real world out
> there beyond phenomenal consciousness. "Logic is rooted in the social
> principle" (1878) in that it explicates the relationship between
> experience and reality, which it cannot do prior to the developmental
> stage at which the difference between the two is recognized -- a stage
> accessible only to *social* animals who can handle symbolic signs. (The 
> "method of tenacity" is, in a sense, a reversion to an earlier stage of 
> development even though it is also a social stance.)
> 
> So i don't think Peirce needs to be saved; or if he does, it's only
> because (like a bodhisattva) he has "sacrificed his own soul to save the
> whole world."
> 
>         gary F.
> 
> }To seek Buddhahood apart from living beings is like seeking echoes by
> silencing sounds. [Layman Hsiang]{
> 
> gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
>               }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/gnoxic.htm }{
> 
> 
> ---
> Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! 
Ideal f¨r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com