Jeff, Søren, Charles list,
I agree with your succinct analysis of this matter of the evolution of the self through self-control, Jeff, and especially your very well-stated conclusion that "there is much to be said for trying to avoid importing assumptions into the normative sciences that will tend to bias our inquiry." This point has been made any number of times on the list over the years--for recent example, by Ben Udell in certain posts related to Peirce's Classification of the Sciences--but it bears repeating. However, I'm currently on vacation so I won't say more just now. Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York E202-O 718 482-5700 *** *** *** *** >>> Jeffrey Brian Downard 06/01/14 10:51 AM >>> Søren, Charles and list, The argument Peirce gives about the logical conception of the self in "Question Concerning Certain Faculties" is about the development of the self. In his later works, Peirce makes it clear that the example of a child developing a logical conception of self is meant to help us explore what is requisite for the evolution of the self and the related capacities for self control more generally. (CP, 7.381-4) The story we might tell in the special sciences of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology about the development of self-organizing and autopoietic systems shouldn't be used in a normative theory of logic as a basis for developing our logical hypotheses. In time, we'll want to reconcile the account of the self developed in our logical theory with the accounts given in the special sciences, but we should be wary of getting the cart before the horse. (CP, 7.581) We could, of course, disagree with Peirce on this point, and there are many who do. For my part, however, I think there is much to be said for trying to avoid importing assumptions into the normative sciences that will tend to bias our inquiry. --Jeff Jeff Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy NAU (o) 523-8354 ________________________________ From: Søren Brier [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 5:52 AM To: charles murray; Peirce List Subject: SV: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on Mind, self, and person Charles and list But section 9.4 is not really about the definition of how subjects are created. But it is clear for me that Peirce saw the creation of the subject as a dialogical awareness of the limits of knowing. This creation is connected somehow to the development of an individual body (a bodyhood) as mind and matter are deeply connected through the semiotic process. In modern term for this process is a self-organizing process creating an autopoietic unit, or what you could call an autoposemiotic unit, which is what Peirce calls a symbol. This symbol is a limited model of the huge argument that the universe is. We thus have this deep inner connection to the universe we have evolved from. Cheers Søren Fra: charles murray [mailto:[email protected]] Sendt: 31. maj 2014 14:24 Til: Peirce List Emne: Re: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on Mind, self, and person Soren - In writing you I took the subject to be section 9.4, discussion of which you might facilitate as emcee of chapter 9 as a whole. I apologize for any inconvenience or awkwardness, and appreciate your response. Best, Charles On May 29, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Søren Brier wrote: I did read this long post and in the end I did not find a question for me and my subject. So what question did you mean? Søren
----------------------------- 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 .
