Sung, You might try the following article, which explores the connections between signs, interpretation, action, and inquiry as reflected in the thought of several thinkers, with special reference to Aristotle, Peirce, and Dewey.
Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 .
