peirce-l  

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

Jim Piat
Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:25:05 -0700

Dear Bill,
 
As always I enjoyed your straightforward, informative and wise comments. You have a way of keeping my feet on the ground without destroying the fun of having my head in the clouds (to pick one of the nicer places I've been accused of having my head).   I hope I did not create the impression that I devalued any of the methods of fixing belief that Peirce described.  I don't think he intended to devalue them either. Nor did I mean to put science on a pedestal. Not that it needs any commendation from me.   I think science is a formalization of the method of common sense which (to borrow Joe's apt description) includes the distinctive elements of each method.  I believe that common sense is the way all humans in all cultures have at all times represented and participated in the world.  We are all symbolic creatures and we all feel, will, and interpret the world with symbols whether we call one another primitive or advanced.  I attribute the sometimes horrors we do not to common sense but to a degenerate form of representation that tries to treat the relational symbolic world as comprised of discrete unrelated things.  A form with no feeling is a phantom, an other with no resistence does not exist and thought that does not mediate is empty verbiage.   The danger arises out of our ability to misrepresent.  We are all fundmentally alike and cut from the same cloth.  LOL--I'm of a mind to go off on a swoon about the commonality of humanity but I fear getting called on giving facile lip service to something I don't practice. 
 
Oh, the feral children.  Hell,  I don't even believe the accounts.  Well I should say I don't believe the labels.  Most of them sound to me like accounts of severely retarded children who have been hidden away by families. Countless severely retarded children have grown up in relatively caring institutions with the same outcome.  But I agree with your point,   IF a child could survive past a week alone in the woods or a closet,  the child still would not develop language etc  --   It's the preposterous  IF that makes me dismiss these as crack pot accounts that have somehow emerged from the tabloids for 15 mins of manistream press. And occassionally the attention of some devoted researcher who ends up wanting to adopt the child. But I don't mean to be cruel. Fact is,  I don't know the detailed facts of any of these cases.   And I digress   --- unaccustomed as I am to public digressions
 
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental psychological laws" is Peirce referring to?

Jim, Joe, List:
This discussion brought to mind the comparison by Claud Levi-Strauss of "primitive" thought and that of western science.  I think the discussion is in The Savage Mind.  Levi-Strauss argues that there is no real difference in terms  of complexity between "primitive" and scientific thought; he found the primitive's categories and structurings in botany, for example, to be as complex as any western textbook might offer. 
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com