Bev, Edwina, Gary, Ben, lists,
In the quote provided by Bev, Peirce said:
" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . For clearly, every assertion
(070215-1)
involves an effort to make the intended interpreter
believe what is asserted, to which end a reason for
believing it must be furnished . . . "
This quote is relevant to the current debate between Edwina and myself.
Edwina ASSERTED,without providing the list members "a reason for believing"
her assertion, that I committed "a logical fallacy of circular reasoning"
in my argument summarized below:
(i) We think, write, and speak in signs.
(ii) Peirce's research was devoted to signs.
(iii) Therefore any topics about which we think, write, and speak are
Peirce-related (and hence deserve to be discussed on this list).
Assertion is an action, and it may be that all actions may be driven or
supported by an irreducible triad of EMOTION, COGNITION, and CREDITION (or
belief), at least in some sense. That is, emotion (Firstness ?), Cognition
(Secondness ?), and Credition (Thirdness ?) may form yet another
irreducible triad:
f g
Emotion -----> Cognition -----> Credition
| ^
| |
|_________________________|
h
Figure 1. The hypothesis that Action is an irreducible triad of Emotion,
Cognition and Credition. f = emotional influence on knowing; g = rational
basis for believing; h = emotional constraints on believing something. An
ethical action may be characterized by the commutativity condition being
satisfied, i.e., f followed by g leads to the same result as h alone, or h
leads to the same result as f followed by g. The
emotion-cognition-credition triad was first formulated by Hans-Ferdniand
Angle of the University of Graz, Austria (Angel, Hans-Ferdinand (2011): Ist
das Konzept der Creditionen für die Religionspsychologie brauch- bar? In:
Wege zum Menschen 1/2011, in: Wege zum Menschen 63 (2011),4 – 26
[ = German Version of: “Can the concept of creditions be applicable to
Psychology of Religion? Pa- per held on the IAPR Congress 2009 in Vienna ],
but he did not connect it to the concept of the irreducible triad nor to
the category theory.
I am currently working on an invited manuscript that I began last year and
due in two weeks (!) in which I plan to include Figure 1 as an example of
ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation), and if any one on these lists have any
suggestions or comments, please let me know.
With all the best.
Sung
If a man desires to assert anything very solemnly, he
takes such steps as will enable him to go before a
magistrate or notary and take a binding oath to it.
Taking an oath is … not mere saying, but is doing … it
would be followed by very real effects, in case the
substance of what is asserted should be proved untrue.
This ingredient, the assuming of responsibility, which
is so prominent in solemn assertion, must be present
in every genuine assertion. For clearly, every assertion
involves an effort to make the intended interpreter
believe what is asserted, to which end a reason for
believing it must be furnished. But if a lie would not
endanger the esteem in which the utterer was held,
nor otherwise be apt to entail such real effects as he
would avoid, the interpreter would have no reason to
believe the assertion. Nobody takes any positive stock
in those conventional utterances, such as "I am
perfectly delighted to see you," upon whose falsehood
no punishment at all is visited. At this point, the
reader should call to mind, or, if he does not know it,
should make the observations requisite to convince
himself, that even in solitary meditation every
judgment is an effort to press home, upon the self of
the immediate future and of the general future, some
truth. It is a genuine assertion, just as the vernacular
phrase represents it … Consequently it must be equally
true that here too there is contained an element of
assuming responsibility, of "taking the consequences."
(CP 5.546; fragment 1908)
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the overwhelming concert of harmonious opinions and personal
> thoughts, which supposes one would have, and good to know, are permitted,
> and allowing, at least, for some to be human. In the meanwhile, regarding
> previous request to cite more Peirce, here's my contribution for the day:
> https://www.academia.edu/9181653/SSHAP_Symposium_at_the_Central_2015_-_Saying_as_Doing_Peirce_on_Assertion_Belief_and_Judgment
>
> Enjoy! Hope the weather is lovely where you are too. Ta ta for now!
>
> Best wishes,
> Bev
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:17 PM, michaeljad <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hear, hear. One would think this would go without saying, but apparently
>> not.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Benjamin Udell [mailto:[email protected]]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:37 PM
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Bev, well, yes, Sung barely emulates Peirce at all, but he wants us to
>> do so in certain convenient ways. It really isn't complicated. PEIRCE-L is
>> for discussion of Peirce-related topics - _particularly_ Peirce-related
>> topics, such that the relation is thematized. If people want a total
>> free-for-all, find somewhere else for it. This is peirce-l, not
>> everything-l.Best, Ben*
>>
>> On 7/2/2015 6:27 PM, Bev Corwin wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Ben, I disagree and sounds like an over reaction to Sung's
>> comments. He isn't trying to emulate anything to a T anymore than you are
>> trying to force discussions of Peirce into a technocracy. He is just
>> pointing out something important about Peirce. Why over react? Sincerely,
>> Bev
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sung, all,Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we
>> can't emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for
>> Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on
>> 'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged,
>> multi-post discussions of a given topic should clarify and thematize the
>> topic's relation to Peirce because that is what is promised to subscribers
>> and that is what most subscribers expect.That has been and will continue to
>> be the policy of peirce-l.Best, Ben Udell as co-manager, peirce-l.*
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/2/2015 5:42 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>>
>> Bev, Gary, lists,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study
>> of signs and "Peirce-related" is thus "sign-related", it seems to me.
>> Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS,
>> and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as
>> Peirce-related in one way or another, including linguistic texts, chemical
>> equations, mathematical formulas, network diagrams, pictures, and whatever
>> else that may emerge in the future as NEW means of communication and
>> representation through the Internet.
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, for me, semiotics is not yet closed. Its future should
>> not be confined to studying MACRO-SEMIOTICS as constructed by Poinsot,
>> Peirce, and others but should be open to studying both MICRO-SEMIOTICS as
>> currently being developed in biosemiotics (.e.g., DNA as a molecular sign)
>> and what may be called 'COSMO-SEMIOTICS' as may be developed in the future
>> (e.g., viewing spiral galaxies as cosmological signs). Imagine what
>> fantastic syntheses in philosophy Pierce's genius might be accomplishing
>> now were he alive today !
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than
>> restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more
>> technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------
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 .
