Jerry, even if I have ten years of perspicacity left (which is dubitable at my
age), I’ll have to spend that time in a terminologically ethical way if I hope
to communicate anything with words. And the same goes for all of us, at least
on the Peirce list.
Your claim about “the notion of ‘common experience’” reveals a confusion
between experience (“our only teacher,” according to Peirce) and “the ideal
state of complete information” (EP1:54) which is the end of scientific inquiry.
If the study of mouse corneas could clear up that kind of confusion for
anybody, it would have done so for you by now. I’m afraid you can’t reasonably
claim to know what Peirce is ‘pointing to’ until you’re better acquainted with
what Peirce wrote, and more attentive to your own common experience. As Peirce
and I use that term, it refers to “phenomena which lie open to the observation
of every man, every day and hour” (CP 7.526). As any phenomenologist will tell
you, those are the hardest phenomena to observe attentively, precisely because
they are omnipresent for all humans, if not for all sentient beings.
Hence the challenge of philosophy (or more precisely, “cenoscopy”). I hope you
will have time to take it up.
Gary f.
} One person's distraction is another's revelation. [gnox] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 10-Apr-16 14:15
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
-----------------------------
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 .
