That is, wrt to your own post: "The Buddha said many times, "My teaching is like a finger pointing to the moon. Do not mistake the finger for the moon." [Thich Nhat Hanh]"
where; Peirce's teachings are the finger... and the moon is the corneal spiral, which is phi, but only sometimes. Best, Jerry R On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gary f and list, > > Thank you for your deep consideration and response to my questions. > > I would ask you to examine your answer in ten years. This notion of > "common experience" is as malleable as that of "common sense" because the > ideas deal with things at the end of inquiry to all who investigate. For > example, philosophy, biology and mathematics *mean* different things now > than it did in Peirce's time because philosophy and biology can be said to > be the same thing because nature and self-understanding. Mathematics is a > tool used in biology and philosophy and biology can be used to develop > mathematics. Phyllotaxis is a good example. > > What I assert is that phi spiral abduction is a "true opinion" about some > one thing, but what makes a true opinion true (and different from > 'knowledge') if not that it is something contested? The grounding for me > in thinking that it is true is based on filament-like connections in my > experience, experience to which you don't yet have access. If it wasn't > contested and everyone agreed due to force of the evidence, then it could > simply be claimed that it is either false knowledge or true knowledge. > > So, why should it be false when it can be true? Experience...but why > don't you have the right experience? It is there, in front of you. Why > won't you immerse yourself in it?...because it's too much and unfamiliar > for now, and you remain skeptical. No worries, it is expected behavior > because human nature. > > With respect to what phi spiral abduction can offer, well, I'll put it > simply: "what does it *mean* to you?"...probably nothing or something > annoying. > "what does it mean to you in ten years?"...probably everything you're > searching for in Peirce. > > "One, Two, Three. Already written." ~A *Guess* at the Riddle. > one, two, three...*beauty*, goodness, truth...esthetics, ethics, logic. > (CP 1.612) > > Thank you, especially, for your answer to my question on fractals. All > that stuff you just said about recursive functions, algorithms, > esthetically pleasing, continuity and just liking them...The phi spiral is > a fractal and the opportunity might be there for you to experience on a > natural material. > > With best wishes, > Jerry Rhee > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:19 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jerry R, >> >> >> >> I hope you don’t mind if I preface my response to your post with a quote >> from Peirce explaining the differences between mathematics and philosophy, >> and between both and what Peirce called “special sciences” (such as >> biology). Peirce was a practitioner of all three, which deeply affected his >> terminology in logic and semiotic — which, being subdivisions of >> philosophy, are *positive sciences*, unlike mathematics. Here’s Peirce >> (1898): >> >> >> >> [[[ The true difference between the necessary logic of philosophy and >> mathematics is merely one of degree. It is that, in mathematics, the >> reasoning is frightfully intricate, while the elementary conceptions are of >> the last degree of familiarity; in contrast to philosophy, where the >> reasonings are as simple as they can be, while the elementary conceptions >> are abstruse and hard to get clearly apprehended. But there is another much >> deeper line of demarcation between the two sciences. It is that mathematics >> studies nothing but pure hypotheses, and is the only science which never >> inquires what the actual facts are; while philosophy, although it uses no >> microscopes or other apparatus of special observation, is really an >> experimental science, resting on that experience which is common to us all; >> so that its principal reasonings are not mathematically necessary at all, >> but are only necessary in the sense that all the world knows beyond all >> doubt those truths of experience upon which philosophy is founded. This is >> why the mathematician holds the reasoning of the metaphysician in supreme >> contempt, while he himself, when he ventures into philosophy, is apt to >> reason fantastically and not solidly, because he does not recognize that he >> is upon ground where elaborate deduction is of no more avail than it is in >> chemistry or biology. ]]] —CP 3.560 >> >> >> >> From this point on my responses are interleaved. >> >> >> >> *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* 9-Apr-16 22:28 >> >> Hi list, >> >> I assert that you can simply translate all the difficult language above >> regarding causation/determination/etc., through consideration of a real >> example of an ideal inquiry that utilizes signs, objects and >> interpretants. That is, give good reasons for phi spiral abduction: >> >> >> Promoting convergence: the phi spiral in abduction of mouse corneal >> behaviors. >> >> One advantage is that you don't have to look to Peirce for answers. You >> can discover them on your own. >> >> Gf: It’s not clear to me what question you are referring to, or what it >> would mean to “look to Peirce for answers.” >> >> The questions I’m trying to answer in my own work (including the bits of >> it that I post here now and then because they are about Peirce) are >> essentially philosophical. A central question for me is how *meaning* >> works. In the early stages of writing *Turning Signs*, I found it >> necessary to introduce some of Peirce’s terms. But I soon found that in >> order to use Peirce’s terms *honestly and ethically* (see Peirce’s >> “Ethics of Terminology” in EP2), I needed a deep understanding of the way >> Peirce himself used them in his semiotic and his philosophy as a whole. >> After a dozen years or so of fairly intensive study, I’m still learning >> more about Peirce’s philosophy and, not incidentally, his exacting usage of >> logical and semiotic terms. And sometimes writing up what I discover in >> Peirce, while also trying to be as exacting in my use of terms as he was. >> Some writers are comfortable lifting Peircean terms out of their context >> and using them for their own purposes (with little regard for Peirce’s), >> but I’m not one of those. >> >> Since my main concerns are philosophical, my work refers mostly to “that >> experience which is common to us all.” But since I also have a generalist >> interest in several sciences, I’ve incorporated what I’ve learned from them >> into my book too. So there’s quite a bit of biology, and neuroscience in >> particular, in my book, as you can see if you peruse my reference list. But >> I take it that you, as a biologist, are “asserting” that some complex >> questions about semiotic and philosophical terminology can be settled by a >> study of mouse corneal behaviors, or a study of that study. I have to say >> that I find this highly implausible. That simply is not the kind of >> information that philosophy can draw from special sciences like biology. >> Examples, yes; essential concepts such as causation and determination, no. >> >> Jon Awbrey, in contrast to both of us, thinks that the only viable >> approach to understanding Peirce (and understanding inquiry) is by way of >> mathematical formalisms, with little or no reference to the common >> *experience* of semiosis. Now, I think that both mathematicians and >> biologists have something to offer to the study of Peirce, just as I think >> that Peirce had a lot to offer to both mathematics and biosemiotics (as we >> call it now). But since my own interest in Peirce is philosophical, “resting >> on that experience which is common to us all,” I don’t always have time to >> venture into what would be (for me) detours from the main road of inquiry. >> >> Gary: I just discovered your website. Very nice! >> >> Gf:Thanks! >> >> Also, this is a very earnest question: Why did you choose pictures of >> fractal spirals on your webpage? >> >> Gf: An honest answer: I’ve had many fractal images (some of which happen >> to include spirals) on my hard drive for years because I used to enjoy >> playing with free fractal generating software and ‘zooming in’ on the >> Mandelbrot set. I saved the images that I found most esthetically >> appealing, and have been using them ever since on my desktops. There is a >> conceptual connection with *Turning Signs* because the basic algorithms >> used to generate those images are recursive, and because I associate the >> idea of fractal dimensions with Peirce’s concept of continuity. But mainly >> I use them just because I like them and (not being a very visual person) I >> don’t have many images on my hard drive, and very few that I made myself. >> >> So, it’s not because of a special interest in spirals. J >> >> Gary f. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Jerry Rhee >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
