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 <tabor...@primus.ca> 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 <stever...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *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 <tabor...@primus.ca>
> 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 <trevriz...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L
>> <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
>> *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 <jerryr...@gmail.com> 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 <
>>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> 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 <jerryr...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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
>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to