Von: "Eugene Halton" <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu>
An: "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's Questions, i.e. "icon" and Destiny?
Dear Helmut,
Or maybe rather: Die Quantität der Potate ist indirekt proportional zur Intelligenskapazität ihres Kultivators! (Or, as it is put in the south: Der Dümmste Bauer hat die grösste’ Kartoffel’!).
Loosely translated: “The size of the potato is indirectly proportional to the IQ of the farmer; or, the dumbest hick has the biggest spud.”
Gene
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:14 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's Questions, i.e. "icon" and Destiny?
Maybe the ability of having a self concept is proportional with the intelligence or the well functioning of the mind, because the mind is a reflecting system, and also self-reflecting, if it is highly developed. But intelligence does not guarantee social competence: Asperger people and are often very intelligent, but lack social competence. I like the term "social agreement", though many agreements have been established long before a human was born, and are eg. present in the epigenes and genes. Social agreements, I think, are the structure of a social system (Luhmann said, expectations and expectations of expectations are the structure). And the more one shares these agreements or expectations, the more social competence he or she has. Intelligence, of course, helps too, but not alone. And a trauma, like having been neglected as a child, or experience of violence, like in a war, can destroy or block social agreements and with it social competence.
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2014 um 13:41 Uhr
Von: "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
An: "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>
Cc: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de>, "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's Questions, i.e. "icon" and Destiny?
There are myriad individuals who are not by our standards fully formed, normal, etc. I will never forget a visit in Winston-Salem to a facility literally filled with almost identical human beings all of whom were "condemned to existences of complete stasis. I have worked in mental hospitals of various sorts and could go on about this. But my conclusion would be this: Our normalcy is a social agreement that may exclude those who are deemed outside of the circle. But life is ultimately wrapped in a penumbra of mystery and we cannot be the judges of what constitutes normalcy or even of the quality of existences of those who could be deemed to be irretrievably altered due to chemically explicable causes. That we do judge does not mean that the lives lived by all do not constitute a destiny. To say that is merely to say they are as real as any life.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote:
On Jun 11, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
It's probable that the initial consciousness of a person at birth is already formed and that images have already been seen as they are, it seems, when we lie abed with our eyes closed. This is what makes current debate regarding conception so damnably difficult. It most probably begins prior to 'birth'. The existence of someone else - parent, other - simply expands this consciousness to social operability. My own sense is that a form of destiny is already existent, thus personality.
Stephen, List:
You write:
My own sense is that a form of destiny is already existent, thus personality.
Nearly a year ago, I was introduced to a young, man, named Logan, age 12, with sparkling eyes and a gentle demeanor. His body was so very normal. He was excited about the forth-coming athletic contest. He loved his special ed teacher and they expressed their mutual affection for one another.
Logan's IQ is 50.
So low that he never will be capable of living independently.
His IQ is a consequence of a chemical difference in his DNA, inherited from his parents and made manifest by developmental processes.
Technically, this can be called a mis-arrangement of the electric particles composing his DNA.
In other words, a component of the causality of Logan's IQ is electrical in it's abstract nature.
How does Logan's fate relate to CSP's philosophy?
Does this realistic and pragmatic example of Logan constitute a "form of chemical destiny"?
Is Logan's case an exception to the general hypothesis that very human individual has a genetic sequence and hence that we all should be, philosophically, a consequence of the chemical destiny we inherit from of parents?
Is this our birthright? Technically, are the (abstract) electric particles the antecedent "leading principle" of the (gamma existential) graph from which our bodies and mind emerge, part of our chemical destiny?
For my philosophy of logic, the word "destiny" requires multiple symbol systems in order to capture its breadth and depth, its extension and its comprehension (W1, Harvard Lectures)
Cheers
Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
