Forgot the link … https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 .
