Gary F. I will continue to puzzle about this, not in hope or pretense of changing the terms that have currency in philosophical discussion, but because, given the slipperiness or words and their (assumed) clear subsequence to signs (images? appearances?) I would contend there is a good argument for claiming that reality is all known and unknown and all that we see as appearance is also reality. Hamlet is a case in point, being the very meaning of the tragedy of the binary. (Too late he understands that.) The actions that emerge from Hamlet are the product of his encounter with appearances. No one will say that the ghost is, as Peirce sometimes says of unreality, a figment or fiction. It is the ghost who insists on reality and whose reality Hamlet both embraces and rejects. This issue is crucial to me because it also has massive relevance to the theological references that have stimulated by Peirce's comments on the subject in NA and elsewhere. If we accept that reality is everything we can begin to apply a spectrum understanding to it and move to a consideration of matters that eventuate in conduct (another term Peirce uses without specifying its relationship to the pragmatic maxim). There is much more to be said about Hamlet. Especially when we consider that Hamlet slayed the one on whom Shakespeare, with delicious irony, showered "memorial maxims". And that Ophelia, for all that has been written of her, is hardly opaque in describing rape. Crazy? No way.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, my previous post got away from me while I was drafting it ... > completed here. > > > > Phyllis, Jeff, > > > > I think you're essentially right about Peirce's argument for the reality > of God. And Jeff, you're right that I disagree with him -- but not with the > logic of his argument. I just don't share the instinctive feeling that his > argument is grounded in. Optimism doesn't come naturally to me, I just try > to act as if it did, out of a feeling of responsibility. J > > > > Gene, Jon, Gary R, > > > > Yes, the creative *urge *-- the force that through the green fuse drives > the flower, as another poet put it. It doesn't strike me as benign, though. > The quality of life that strikes me most is its *ruthlessness*. (What if > the Creator or evolution causes (most of) us to see it as positive and > benign just to keep the ¥-ball rolling?) > > > > Søren, Edwina, Matt, I agree with you too. J Very interesting > conversation here. > > > > Stephen, you ask, > > [[ "Peircean realism does not assert that *all* generals are real." But > doesn't he more or less admit into reality everything that we perceive or > think about or otherwise recognize and relate to? I know that he > distinguishes between real and unreal but I am still perplexed by how he > can say all thinking is in signs and not concede that everything is in some > sense real. ]] > > > > In keeping with his ethics of terminology, Peirce was careful to use the > term "real" as it was used by those who introduced it into philosophical > discourse and used it as a technical term (namely the Scholastics). > "Everything that we perceive or think about or otherwise recognize and > relate to" is part of the phaneron, which is the collective total of > everything that *appears.* But not everything that appears is real in > Peirce's sense (although you can reasonably say that everything that > appears *really appears*). The distinction between appearance and reality > is basic to all the normative sciences, and your usage of "reality" does > away with that distinction. That's why I stick with Peirce's usage, in > philosophical discourse. > > > > gary f. > > > > } When Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is > kindness. When kindness is lost, there is justice. When justice is lost, > there is ritual. [Tao Te Ching 38 (Feng/English)] { > > www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm }{ gnoxics > > > > > > > > *From:* Phyllis Chiasson [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* 22-Jun-14 8:53 PM > *To:* Jeffrey Brian Downard; Gary Fuhrman; peirce-l@list iupui. edu > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on > God, science and religion: text 1 > > > > My experience with NA has lead me to similar understandings. If God and > love are synonymous terms, as even many fundamentalists will agree. And if > love (&justice) are Real forces as Peirce says, then love and/or God is (or > can be) physically efficient. The future effects of said efficiency rely > upon a definition (in this case vague) from which to test and measure > outcomes. NA, after all is merely a hypothesis. > > Phyllis > > Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gary F., List, > > > > I think the argument at 6.303 rehearses Peirce's larger argumentative > strategy, which is to draw on the formal relations examined in the > phenomenology and the kinds of signs and principles of inference studied in > logic as basis for setting up the principles of metaphysics. Once he has > shown that tychasm and anancasm are degenerate forms of agapasm, he is > then in a position to argue that a principle of love is the highest of the > three principles--and the only one that will supply us with adequate > explanations of such things as the growth of order. > > > > As such, I think Peirce gives a pretty strong cable of arguments grounded > in his phenomenology and logic for thinking that the world is governed by a > principle of love. In fact, I think the neglected argument is an argument > drawn from common experience for thinking that a particularly general and > vague conception of God can serve as a kind of global hypothesis for > explaining the growth of order in all three universes of experience--and > that this hypothesis is a central strand of the cable he is winding > together into a system of ideas. > > > > As an interpretation of the text, I do think he provides arguments for a > metaphysical principle that is, as you've put it, a benign cause. Having > said that, I understand that you can disagree with Peirce on this matter. > > > > --Jeff > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
