I think that Peirce and Heidegger has a lot in common: 1. A phenomenological
foundation in their philosophies, which Peirce calls phaneroscophy and 2. They
are both process philosophers, an aspect that separates them from the young
Husserl, with his absolutism. 3. The dynamical Dasein of Heidegger is close to
the dynamic symbol of which the human self consist in the pragmaticist
philosophy of Peirce in a Tychastic, synechistic and agapastic universe.
Cheers
Søren
Fra: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:[email protected]]
Sendt: 4. juni 2016 11:06
Til: 'Peirce-L'
Cc: [email protected]
Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] [Sadhu Sanga] New Experiences
>”That said the type of question of being that Heidegger does seems largely
>absent in Peirce.”
I do not disagree. And after glancing quickly through Joseph’s linked article,
I take the point being made. However, people have a limited time on this
earth, and it would be interesting to see the narrative evolve were it possible
to bring key thinkers together. In my 2001 Semiotica article, I referenced
Peirce’s observation “the man is the thought” to make my point “the culture is
the thought”. There is no reason why, given enough time, Peirce would not have
come to appreciate the importance of phenomenology au Heidegger.
Ultimately we are all talking about the same thing (might I suggest – knowing
how to be), and the fact that some people are bringing different lenses to the
conversation does not mean that they are necessarily wrong to do so. Framed in
the context of knowing how to be, might that not ultimately be what both
pragmatism and phenomenology distill to? Phenomenology (Heidegger) concerns
itself with being, and pragmatism concerns itself with establishing the things
that matter… I suggest that there necessarily exists a common point of
intersection between them.
Or to put it another way… There is much more to pragmatism than simply
exercising mind-body predispositions to establish the things that matter.
Humans in culture observe what others are doing in order to fast-track the
learning process, and it is not trivial or incidental. We are not talking just
“memes”… think of our accents when we speak. Imitation au Dawkinsian memetics
is simplistic, but imitation in the context of pragmatism and knowing how to be
plays a very important role. Why would Peirce, given enough time on this earth,
not come to a similar understanding? I mean, once we go down this path, other
possibilities with important and practical consequences enter into the
narrative… for example, gender roles within the context of culture.
And as per the point that I’ve made in other conversations… imitation is
integral to overcoming entropy. Knowing how to be brings physics and philosophy
together into a shared narrative.
From: Clark Goble [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 3 June 2016 4:46 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [Sadhu Sanga] New Experiences
On Jun 2, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Stephen Jarosek
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
To cut a long story short… it all revolves around knowing how to be. To those
familiar with Heidegger, Dasein is the closest analogy to what I have in mind.
For those familiar with CS Peirce, pragmatism relates.
Yes, Heidegger’s phenomenology engages with a lot of background practices and
other types of things rather than just what normally goes under consciousness.
In that regard his phenomenology in some ways is much more like the role
experience plays in Peirce. People, like the original list originator Joe
Ransdell, argue against Peirce as a phenomenologist. But most of his critiques
apply more to Husserl styled phenomenology rather than what comes later. That
said the type of question of being that Heidegger does seems largely absent in
Peirce.
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/PHENOM.HTM
To the point about how different must one be to have a different state of
being, I think it depends somewhat. The Peircean answer would most likely be in
terms of continuity. That is the way of being of two twins raised in the same
how is quite close. The way of being of a person raised in an educated middle
class home in the 21st century west is quite different from someone raised in
more primitive conditions thousands of years ago. Yet they’re still similar. To
borrow Nagel, move towards what it’s like to be a bat and the difference is
enough that we’d call it a great difference.
-----------------------------
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 .
