I have no argument save my own guesses and my recollections of reading something that said to me that CSP thought as I suggested so I will read some more and see if anyone else chimes in. Cheers, S
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Thread: > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140630220000/http:// > permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13446 > SR:http://web.archive.org/web/20140701002000/http:// > permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13447 > > Stephen, > > If I read you correctly, you have doubts about Peirce's description of > inquiry. > I don't believe there can be much doubt that doubts about a specific > theory of > a given subject X, if they are serious enough, would move us to seek > relief in > a state of belief about the theory in question, whether it is worth the > candle > or not. There may be other trajectories of mind, conscious or otherwise, > that > would lead us the same state of calm certainty as one that began in > irritating > uncertainties, who can say, better yet, what sort of process would it take > for > us to be able to say, yea or nay, up or down? At any rate, as far as my > study > of Peirce goes, I do not read him saying that doubt is the impetus of the > mind > in all its manifestations. It is always possible that I missed something, > but > I read him as describing a specific order of process under the head of > inquiry. > > That is the order of process that I have as my subject here. > > Jon > > Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> I've puzzled over this because CSP seems almost dogmatic on the point of >> doubt being the aegis not merely of inquiry but thought itself. First, can >> there not be other prods to thought that are at least as effective? >> Secondly, how much does our own mental process affect our thinking. I >> would >> hazard a guess that we are all editors and snippers and pasters of squibs >> of thought and memory that are welling up near the surface of >> consciousness. If we consciously think, devoting time to do so, we have >> already eliminated doubt as the sole cause of it. All manner if >> initiations. All manner of resolutions. Somehow I infer that CSP is close >> to a sort of brain mechanism notion. I have no sense that much can be >> gained from assuming that doubt is the sole origin of what takes place to >> give birth to belief. Finally belief and doubt are not opposites, >> sometimes >> they walk hand in hand within our minds. Simultaneously. >> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thread: >>> JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140630184801/http:// >>> permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13445 >>> >>> Peircers, >>> >>> Correcting a few typos and continuing ... >>> >>> Just a note to anchor a series of recurring thoughts that come to mind >>> incidental to the thread on entropy, etc., but I won't have to much to >>> say >>> on the bio-chemico-physico-thermo-dynamic side of things, so I'll spin >>> this off under a separate heading. My interest in this topic arises >>> mainly >>> from my long-time work on inquiry driven systems, where understanding the >>> intertwined measures of uncertainty and information is critical to >>> comprehending the dynamics of inquiry. >>> >>> In a famous passage, Peirce says that inquiry begins with the "irritation >>> of doubt" and ends when the irritation is soothed. Here we find the same >>> compound of affective and cognitive ingredients that we find in >>> Aristotle's >>> original recipe for the sign relation. >>> >>> When we view inquiry as a process taking place in a system the first >>> thing >>> we have to ask is what are the properties or variables that we need to >>> consider in describing the state of the system at any given time. >>> Taking a >>> Peircean perspective on a system capable of undergoing anything like an >>> inquiry process, we are led to ask what are the conditions for the >>> possibility of a system having "states of uncertainty" and "states of >>> information" as state variables. >>> >>> Saved by the Belle, and time for dinner ... >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >
----------------------------- 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 .
