Exactly. I think for Peirce logic is ultimately goodness which is why I see Ethics as the index of the next great triad, if we ever get there. My dear wife incidentally is both Jewish and an atheist and the most admirable person I know. I am a quasi-Presbyterian WASP universalist. I am a very lucky fellow.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen - glad to hear that your analysis also permits atheism within all > thought processes. As i noted, Phyllis Chiasson is a well-known and > esteemed Peircean scholar. My own term of 'god' is Mind, which removes the > anthropomorphism, which acknowledges its reality, its universality, and > acknowledges its nature as Reason - along with spontaneity within the > actions of Mind. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 9:27 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Mine does. > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ben, thanks for your outline - a very clear and succinct summary. >> Phyllis Chiasson is an esteemed Peircean scholar - I appreiate her analysis >> of the NA. A key factor in her analysis, with its focus on thought >> processes, is that it permits atheism - while retaining all thought >> processes. I suspect that Jon's interpretation doesn't permit such a result. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Ben Novak <[email protected]> >> *To:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L >> <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 6:22 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking >> >> Dear Jerry, Jon, List: >> >> Jerry R: "What do you take as the thing that determines it in Chiasson's >> essay, then?" >> >> The author, Phyllis Chiasson, states right up front: >> >> *This brief essay will show that, in demonstrating his meaning of >> abductive reasoning, Peirce laid out the attitude and method from which all >> decisions of importance to the conduct of a life should begin. It will then >> show, based upon Peirce's Neglected Argument, that it is the attitude from >> which the abductive reasoning process is undergone--and not a particular >> hypothesis resulting from the abduction--which produces the sorts of >> hypotheses worthy of testing out by means of making one's various life >> choices accordingly .* >> >> Later in her argument, she states what is essential for a "theory of >> thinking," namely, a proper frame of mind to enter into thinking maximally >> fruitfully: >> >> *What's being proposed here is the possiblity that the Actual consequence >> (as Peirce defines Actual in N.A.) of the optimistic Musement stage of >> abductive reasoning (the only way in which a sane person would perform this >> stage) is not an hypothesis of the Reality of God, but rather the Reality >> of the sort of hypotheses of which the Reality of God might be a type?* >> >> So, what is that reality? Chiasson suggests that it means two hypotheses: >> >> *T**hough God is a value-laden term for most people--the idea of God's >> Reality, in Peirce's sense, does not have to signify a specific being--nor >> need it have a religion connected up to it.** It appears that Peirce's >> use of the term, God, may have signified an ongoing inquiry into the >> [1] hypothesis that there is meaning resulting from the way in which an >> individual conducts his life.** This meaning is a consequence of >> deliberate choices of conduct based upon having abductively developed >> the [2] hypothesis that what he does matters to both the immediate and >> ultimate outcome of things that may be beyond his ken.* >> >> Now, these two hypotheses (bolded) seem to me to be pretty important >> aspects of any complete "theory of thinking." They also seem to be about as >> close to suggesting the reality of God (at least as far as Chiasson >> describes what can be meant by God) as one can possibly get. >> >> That is the short version, according to Chiasson, who then delves into >> the longer version: what is meant by the logic of abduction, suggesting the >> reason why the Neglected Argument for the Reality of God is mostly devoted >> to Peirce's most complete discussion of abduction. Thus she writes: >> >> *And that's the short version of of Peirce's "Neglected Argument for the >> Reality of God" in action. But what does this essay mean in terms of >> Peirce's pragmatism--in terms of the meaning of abduction**?* >> >> When it comes to a real theory of thinking, what could be more relevant >> than this: >> >> *Peirce's argument here appears to be much the same as all the rest that >> he wrote about the role of abduction in pragmatism. He argued in this essay >> for the place of optimistic meandering by means of abduction to develop the >> hypothesis of God. (We could just as easily call this optimistic, aesthetic >> meandering) He argued for the place of ethical principles as the basis for >> developing the explication and demonstration of this hypothesis. He >> emphasized the place of action-reaction-interpretation as the ongoing >> process for setting out to prove the hypothesis of God-the same way as he >> would have us set about to prove anything else. The only apparent >> difference between this essay and Peirce's more 'scientific' ones is that >> the experiment in this case requires an individual to consciously engage >> himself in the experience of living his life. The proof--if it can be >> called that--resides in testing and adjusting as necessary to the >> conditions of the hypothesis throughout the conduct of one's life and not >> in any other objective measure.* >> >> This is directly relevant to Peirce's theory of thinking, because it goes >> to the prerequisites of fruitful thinking, for example, writes Chiasson: >> >> *In 'A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", then, Peirce really >> argued for the Reality of the ways in which one's perspective (or vision) >> directs the aesthetic* >> >> Chiasson certainly wraps it all up into a more complete theory of >> thinking: >> >> >> >> >> >> *It is in this sense that Peirce's "Neglected Argument for the Reality of >> God" appears to make the most sense and to have the greatest application to >> human conduct--and this may be, indeed, its very meaning. As Peirce wrote >> in "What Pragamtism is": But of the myriad forms in which a proposition may >> be translated, what is that one which is to be called its very meaning? It >> is, according to the pragmaticist, that form in which the proposition >> becomes applicable to human conduct, not in these or those special >> circumstances, nor when one entertains this or that special design, but >> that form which is most directly applicable to self-control under every >> situation and to every purpose. [32]What more is there that the Hypothesis >> of God could mean? If one can define accurately all of the conceivable >> experimental phenomena which the affirmation or denial of a concept could >> imply, one will have therein a complete definition of the concept, and >> there is absolutely nothing else in it. [33]Perhaps Peirce's Neglected >> Argument is suggesting to us that this is it. Perhaps this is all there is >> to the meaning of abduction and the meaning of pragmatism that follows from >> this. Maybe this is the point from which we can begin to understand what >> Peirce was hoping to do when he wrote to Lady Welby in 1911: "I am just now >> trying to get a small book written in which I positively prove just what >> the justification of each of the three types of reasoning consists in...and >> showing the real nature of Retroduction." * >> >> Returning to the question with which this email begins--Jerry R.: "What >> do you take as the thing that determines it in Chiasson's essay, then?"--it >> seems that Peirce's Neglected Argument really does revolve around all the >> themes we have been talking about, namely >> >> 1) An argument for the reality of God >> 2) his laying out of abduction >> 3) a theory of thinking >> >> and it seems like Chiasson has found a way to nest them all together >> rather well. Her concluding sentence seems to be the first step to what Jon >> is looking for when he commenced this thread as a quest to discover >> Peirce's theory of thinking: >> >> *Perhaps it is by examining the activities at this earliest stage of >> abductive reasoning (Musement)--where new possibilities first present >> themselves for consideration--we can begin to build a clearer idea of what >> Peirce actually intended for abduction--and his theory of pragmaticism to >> mean. * >> >> JerryR, I hope this answers your question. >> >> Jon, I hope this furnishes a fruitful beginning for pursuing yours, which >> you have made ours, too. >> >> Ben N. >> >> *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* >> 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 >> Telephone: (814) 808-5702 >> >> *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts >> themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar >> of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and >> a sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear >> accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jon, >>> >>> I suppose that settles it then. For what is stated in your response is >>> how to make our ideas clear, or one over many. >>> >>> Best, >>> JR >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jerry R., List: >>>> >>>> JR: Is it your claim, then, that the actual proposition should matter? >>>> >>>> >>>> All I am saying is that the title of Peirce's article strongly suggests >>>> that it is primarily about a neglected argument for the Reality of God. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jon, list: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You said: >>>>> >>>>> “ I find it rather implausible that a work entitled "A Neglected >>>>> Argument for the Reality of God" was somehow intended to be more about >>>>> "the >>>>> *attitude *and *method *from which all decisions of importance to the >>>>> conduct of a life should begin," such that the content of the hypothesis >>>>> itself is secondary or even irrelevant.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is an interesting statement. Is it your claim, then, that the >>>>> actual proposition should matter? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If it matters so much, then, what is it for this situation, the >>>>> proposition/hypothesis; that thing that makes the matter answerable? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is, if "The hypothesis cannot be admitted, even as a hypothesis, >>>>> unless it be supposed that it would account for the facts or some of >>>>> them?" >>>>> what is the argument in logical form for the NA? Where is the beginning >>>>> of >>>>> such a thing? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jerry R >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
