Lovely. To which the following makes an entertaining postscript. Peirce: CP 2.111 Cross-Ref:††
§6. OBJECTIVE LOGIC †1 111. With Speculative Rhetoric, Logic, in the sense of Normative Semeotic, is brought to a close. But now we have to examine whether there be a doctrine of signs corresponding to Hegel’s objective logic; that is to say, whether there be a life in Signs, so that — the requisite vehicle being present — they will go through a certain order of development, and if so, whether this development be merely of such a nature that the same round of changes of form is described over and over again whatever be the matter of the thought or whether, in addition to such a repetitive order, there be also a greater life-history that every symbol furnished with a vehicle of life goes through, and what is the nature of it. There are minds who will pooh-pooh an idea of this sort, much as they would poohpooh a theory involving fairies. I have no objection to the pooh-pooh-ing of fairies, provided it be critical pooh-pooh-ing; but I wish I had the leisure to place before those gentlemen a work to be entitled The History of Pooh-pooh-ing. I think it would do them good; and make room in their minds for an essay upon the Logic of Pooh-pooh-ing. Mind, that if some forenoon, while I was in the midst of one of the most valuable of the chapters of my “Minute Logic,” a rap should come at my outer door, and if, upon going to the door, I were to find two men who proposed to come in and discuss with me the principles of Mormonism or Christian Science, I should promptly recommend them to apply elsewhere. This I should do upon the same grounds upon which I declined to join the American Psychical Research Society when it was started; namely, that I thought that to do so would be to sanction a probable great waste of time, together with the placing of some men in a compromising position. In like manner, if a reader who has thought it worth while to listen to what I have had to say upon normative logic finds objective logic too remote from his interests to care to listen to any discussion of it, I shall fully approve of his allowing the leaves of my chapter upon this subject to remain uncut. But my own position is different. It lies directly in the path of my duty to consider the question critically. Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a few comments on the irrational authoritarianism of Dr. Shanta - > I'll note that for Peirce, 'Reason', which is akin to Mind, "is something > that never can have been completely embodied"...the essence of Reason is > such that its being never can have been completely perfected. It always > must be in a state of incipiency, of growth"...the development of Reason > requires as a part of it the occurrence of more individual events than ever > can occur". 1.615. Ideals of Conduct. Lowell Lectures 1903. > > Note also that for Peirce, as an Aristotelian, reason exists within > spatial and temporal embodiment, never on its own. > > Dr. Shanta, on the other hand, promotes an aspatial, atemporal Pure Form > (very Platonic, by the way), of a Pure Absolute; that is, total absolute > knowledge as pre-existent. > > So, Dr. Shanta rejects the three categories, since he rejects the > spontaneity and freedom of Firstness, rejects the materiality of > Secondness, and rejects the embodied evolutionary capacity of Thirdness. > Therefore - what is his knowledge base? Again, it is an aspatial, atemporal > belief. > > In Peirce's Fixation of Belief - 5.358--, 1877, he outlines, clearly, Dr. > Shanta's isolation from reality - and his isolation from that most basic of > human capacities, the capacity-for-doubt. Once you no longer doubt, - that > is 'the end of inquiry' [5.374]. And the basic method used by Dr. Shanta, > is one of the most common of mankind: "this method has, from the earliest > times, been one of the chief means of upholding correct theological and > political doctrines'...Wherever there is an aristocracy or a guild, or any > association of a class of men whose interests depend, or are supposed to > depend, on certain propositions......"cruelties always accompany this > system...'" . This is 'the method of authority" - and that is Dr. Shanta's > method which he tenaciously holds, immune to facts and evidence, by > asserting that any who disagree with him are 'illiterate and unwise'. > > What is interesting is how this method of Authority, which can assert its > dominance over a population, insisting that they be subservient slaves > [which is why Dr. Shanta rejects democracy] - what is interesting is how > readily people who follow this method *accept the results of the > scientific method*. They readily accept all the technological advances - > in medicine and disease control, in electronic communications, in cars, > planes, electricity, food supplies, clean water etc and etc ...that are due > to and only to The Scientific Method - but, in their writings, reject it as > a failure due to its insistence on trial-and-error, fallibility, tests, and > its openness to novelty and change. > > Dr. Shanta dismisses reason - as Peirce notes, in commenting on the > 'method of tenacity for its strength, simplicity and directness" 5.386 - > that "It is impossible not to envy the man who can dismiss reason, although > we know how it must turn out at last" [ibid]. > > But the method of science is different. "Its fundamental hypothesis, > restated in more familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose > characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals > affect our senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are > as different as are our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage > of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by resoning how things really > and truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason > enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion. The new conception > here involved is that of Reality" [5.384]. > > Notice the difference between Peirce's outline and that of Dr. Shanka, who > follows the Authoritarian method of a belief in an aspatial and atemporal > Absolute Truth outside of daily experience. Peirce locates truth in reality > not in an aspatial and atemporal absolute. Then, he accepts that man, with > his capacities (for sense observation and reason) can, over time, access > these Truths. This democratic focus on the equality of man, and a focus on > existential, material reality - is the opposite of Dr. Shanka's focus - > which is more Platonic [pure ideal Forms] - but goes even beyond the Forms > of Plato. > > For Peirce, "the universe of mind...coincides with the universe of matter" > 6.501 [My belief in God]- therefore there cannot be an Absolute. > > At any rate, I don't see the point of arguing with Authority - for the > beliefs held within the mode of Authority are, by their nature, immune to > facts and reason. > > Edwina > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
