Thank you Jon,
I read the article with great interest but did not find any direct
reference to the relation between "belief" and "semiosis" or "signs" that I
was looking for. However, the the following quote is interesting because
it may help us conceive of one possible connection between "belief" and
"semiosis" (as indicated in Figure 1 below):
"The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of believe. .
. . The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle
to attain belief. It is certainly best for us that our beliefs should be
such as may truly guide our actions so as to satisfy our desires; and this
reflection will make us reject any belief which does not seem to have been
so formed as to insure this result. But it will only do so by creating a
doubt in the place of that belief. With the doubt, therefore, the struggle
begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends. . . ." (CP 5.374-375).
Correct me if wrong, but my superficial reading of this paragraph motivates
me to construct the following sequence of processes wherein belief and
inquiry may play essential roles:
1 2 3
4
Irritation of doubt ---------> Inquiry ---------> Belief ---------->
Guiding of actions ----------> Satisfying desires
^
|
|
|
|_____________________________________________________________________|
5
Figure 1. The role of "belief" in the process of "inquiry" according to
Peirce.
1 = causes the human brain to launch an inquiry.
2 = semiosic interaction with a community of inquirers leads to publicly
acknowledged stable resolution of opposing opinions.
3 = the mental habit produced by beliefs control actions, both mental and
physical.
4 = satisfies our emotional/intellectual desires.
5 = removes the original irritation of doubt
Figure 1 can be interpreted as (i) the process of inquiry seen from outside
and in a population (to be called the 'exo' view) or (ii) the molecular and
cellular processes going on in individual minds and bodies (the 'endo'
view) which are necessary for (i). These endo and exo views may be
complementary aspects of the reality of inquiry.
All the best.
Sung
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sung, List,
>
> I have an early flight in the morning so just two notes:
>
> A precursor of Peirce's pragmatic maxim is Alexander Bain's definition of
> belief as that upon which a person is prepared to act.
>
> Also see Peirce's essay, “The Fixation of Belief”:
>
> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm
>
> I'm sure other listers can supply further detail.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
>
> On Mar 31, 2015, at 8:00 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> you wrote:
>
> "Whether we view the Big Bang as a singular haecceity, a spontaneous
> occurrence, or simply inexplicable, our current beliefs about the origin of
> the universe have arisen through applications of the inquiry process
> progressing through the millennia from primitive to fully scientific forms.
> Those beliefs may change tomorrow afternoon or a hundred years from now
> as new evidence pops up or accumulates over time but if and when they do it
> will be through further applications of the same tradition of inquiry."
>
> What is interesting to me is that you mentioned "belief" twice in this
> statement. Did Peirce ever brought up "belief" in his discussions on
> semiosis or semiotics ? I ask this question because in the irreducible
> triadic diagram I use to represent the Peircean sign or semiosis, there is
> a room for the involvement of "belief" (I believe), as indicated below (see
> Step denoted as -h, the reverse of Step h):
>
> f g
> Object ------------------------> Sign ------------------>
> Interpretant
> (Origin of the Universe) (Osbervable Universe) (Big Bang
> theory)
> |
> ^
> |
> |
> |____________________________________________|
> h
>
> Figure 1. Is "believing" an intrinsic part/component of semiosis ?
> f = natural process/feeling/'emotion' (e.g., cosmogenesis)
> g = mental process/'cognition' (leading to, e.g., the Big
> Bang theory)
> h = information flow (enabling humans to know reality)
> -h = believing or 'credition'
>
> All the best.
>
> Sung
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John, List,
>>
>> Ontological questions are always interesting but aside from the weak
>> bonds of some putative anthropic principle they don't bear that heavily on
>> methodological questions. Whether we view the Big Bang as a singular
>> haecceity, a spontaneous occurrence, or simply inexplicable, our current
>> beliefs about the origin of the universe have arisen through applications
>> of the inquiry process progressing through the millennia from primitive to
>> fully scientific forms. Those beliefs may change tomorrow afternoon or a
>> hundred years from now as new evidence pops up or accumulates over time but
>> if and when they do it will be through further applications of the same
>> tradition of inquiry.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:47 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear lists,
>>
>>
>>
>> The following article is relevant to issues of “What came before the Big
>> Bang?”, the evolution of laws in the universe and some others. It cites,
>> among others, David Layzer and myself, and generally follows the approaches
>> that we have argued for. It also brings together other related material
>> from other sources related to symmetry breaking (information formation,
>> and, if on a cosmic scale, law formation). In particular it invokes the “no
>> boundary conditions” requirement for a satisfactory cosmological theory
>> (favoured by Hawking, Smolin, Layzer and many other cosmologists). The
>> authors give this condition as that the universe originated in a
>> singularity that is not knowable, since it contains no information.
>> Information, here, is of course the physicists’ notion of “it from bit”,
>> used in cosmology, the study of black holes and in some branches of Quantum
>> Theory (quantum computation and quantum field theory in particular),
>> according to which energy and matter are incidental, and information
>> (distinctness) is fundamental.
>>
>>
>>
>> The paper is Spontaneous Creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo
>>
>> Maya Lincoln
>>
>> Electronic Address: [email protected]
>>
>> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel
>>
>> Avi Wasser
>>
>> Electronic Address: [email protected]
>>
>> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel
>>
>>
>>
>> It can be found online with a good search engine.
>>
>>
>>
>> The paper is a sketch of the theory rather than a theory (as they say “a
>> first step”). I don’t think it differs all that much from David Layzer’s
>> views, judging by my discussions with him about twenty years ago. But
>> perhaps it is more boldly stated. I am not satisfied that it really
>> resolves the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, but if it
>> does, it makes the existence of the Universe necessary rather than
>> contingent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> John Collier, Philosophy, UKZN, Durban 4041
>>
>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>
> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
> Rutgers University
> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
> 732-445-4701
>
> www.conformon.net
>
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
