Jeffrey, List,
This quote from EP2:226 goes hand and hand with the pragmatic maxim:
The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate
of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action;
and whatever cannot show its passports at both those gates is to be
arrested as unauthorized by reason.
If Aquinas ruled out an indirect effect then I question the relevance of
going all the way back to his explanation of the transubstantiation: Did
Catholics during Peirce's life believe the bread changes form yet the
difference can't even be indirectly sensed? I'm sure they believed that
eating the bread affected their spirit, thus the purpose of the ritual;
but did they believe that its effect on the spirit has no effect on the
mind or body? I think many Catholics today would say that there is an
indirect effect, which can be felt albeit very subtly, which is
different from the mere belief that the bread is really Jesus's flesh.
In this case conceiving a test is not so difficult. Although, I
think the only requirement for understanding is that there is a
perceived difference (Thirdness), which would mean there's a potential
for a test. Conceiving the test is an extra step which makes the
understanding more explicit.
I do think that believing such nonsense as Aquinas's explanation
nonetheless helps orient one's general moral attitude in the direction
that is more conducive to seeing certain subtle truths of life. I bring
this up because I believe a person needs to be in different frames of
mind to be able to see different truths of life. The real truths of
religion are very difficult to put into words, so a dogma is not at all
a logical proposition directly relating a truth, but believing the dogma
is a technique for putting one's self in the proper orientation in order
to see/feel occult truths. Of course, there are other subtle truths that
will be even more concealed while in a specific orientation, so it's
important to spend some time in different mental orientations and
forgetting the rules of one while paying attention to the other. And of
course, don't confuse dogma with truth.
I do believe that occult perceptions and concepts do direct our actions,
and are the driving force of our logica utens. By "occult" I mean
perceptions and concepts below the threshold of where we can readily
acknowledge them. The occult realm is where things only appear in the
peripheral vision of our mind and disappear right before you're able to
directly think about them.
Matt
On 5/3/14, 12:03 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Matt, List,
Matt has asked raised a question about the transubstantiation example.
He says: let me put it this way:
Here are your two hypotheses:
1. The bread changes form without changing sensible effects.
2. The bread doesn’t change in form.
What could possibly be the difference in one’s understanding of these?
An answer “I don’t know” does not necessarily mean “nothing” because a
person’s understanding of anything can range from the obvious to the
occult. The difference in understandings might be too subtle to be
readily explained, but according to Peircian optimism with enough time
and persistent inquiry a real difference would be fleshed out.
My quick response is that (1) above does not adequately capture Aquinas's
claim. He says the bread changes form when the sacrament is performed, and
there are never any sensible effects as a matter of principle. The reason
there is a separation between change of form and change of contingent
properties in this kind of case is that God is the cause of the change of
form--and he has ensured that there will be no change in sensible effects. It
is the assurance that there has been--and will be--no corresponding changes in
sensible effects that causes the problems. Without any change in sensible
effects, it is hard to see how there could be any observation of the bread or
the wine that might cause doubt.
Jeff Downard
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
