Gary F., List: I suppose that it is possible; I would have to go back and re-read her paper, then give it some further thought. Inquiry vs. ingenuity is probably more a difference in emphasis than anything terribly substantive.
CSP: "Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free ourselves and pass into the state of belief; while the latter is a calm and satisfactory state which we do not wish to avoid, or to change to a belief in anything else." (CP 5.372) Peirce seems to be saying here that the *reason* why doubt is an irritation is *because* it is "an uneasy and dissatisfied state," in contrast to the "calm and satisfactory state" of belief. This suggests to me that dissatisfaction is the more fundamental motivation, and satisfaction is the more fundamental objective. We engage in inquiry whenever we are dissatisfied with our current knowledge (or lack thereof); my working hypothesis is that we engage in ingenuity whenever we are dissatisfied with *any* aspect of the current situation. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:34 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, is it possible that your “logic of ingenuity” is Phyllis Chiasson’s > “retroduction”? > > > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
