There are, if I recall - and I'll try to check later - multiple references to 
the fact that one cannot start with 'nothing'; i.e., we start with a belief. 
Then, the notion that the universe is reasonable..and therefore, operates 
according to laws...also has multiple references.

In not merely Fixation of Belief, but in Consequences of Common-Sensism, in How 
to make our ideas Clear.....
I do recall the passage you are referring to...and will try to find it.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ben Novak 
  To: Peirce-L 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking


  Dear List:


  Fifteen or sixteen years ago, I had the Intelex Past Masters version of the 
works of Peirce, and often have reason to recall a passage where Peirce 
explicitly talks about the importance--necessity--of belief to the conduct of 
science. As I recall, he argued that belief was necessary because the scientist 
had to believe that the universe was reasonable, and necessary to believe that 
our minds were capable of apprehending that reasonableness; otherwise, there 
was no use in pursuing it. The principal point of the passage, as I recall, is 
that for the scientist, belief was necessary.


  I would greatly appreciate it if someone might provide that passage. Perhaps 
it may be helpful in our discussions. Perhaps not, but I can't know until I see 
the passage again...


  By way of explanation, unfortunately Intelex changed their method of 
delivering their product, and the CDs I got from them no longer work. See a 
partial explanation here:
  http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/links/intelex.htm


  It is not worth going further into why--unless someone knows a way to get 
around the disabling of Intelex CDs as a result of their change. The point is 
that I no longer have my former Intelex access to Peirce's works. That is why I 
am asking for your  help in finding the passage referred to above. 



  Thanks,


  Ben N.












  Ben Novak
  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 Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Edwina, list:


    Yes, what you say is correct.  


    This is why I disdain the lawn example so much, and for many other reasons 
besides.


    As per the community and experience...there's also that!  


    So, quid sit deus?  What would God be?


    :)

    Best,
    Jerry R


    On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

      Not sure of your point ,Jerry. Since I am sure you know that your example 
is a fallacy [fallacy of affirming the consequent]...After all, we all know 
that your grass is wet because you left the sprinkler on all night.....

      The problem I have with a truth defined as the I-O being similar to the 
R-O, is ..well....it requires that the Representamen be somehow 'untouched' or 
unaffected by experience. That is, can we trust the Representamen?  I think the 
community-of-scholars is necessary in this situation, but even so..wasn't it 
Tolstoy who said that 'wrong does not cease to be wrong just because the 
majority shares in it'...

      Edwina
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Jerry Rhee 
        To: Clark Goble 
        Cc: Peirce-L 
        Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:52 PM
        Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking


        Dear list:



        What you say sounds all well and good but I’m confused.  



        In a description for the abductive process, an inadequate version can 
be given: 



        “The grass is wet, therefore, it must have rained last night.  

        For if it rained last night, then the grass ought to be wet.”



        So, if 

        “Knowledge is the object of our inquiry, and men do not think they know 
a thing till they have grasped the 'why' of it (which is to grasp its primary 
cause);”



        then my question is ‘Why the Reality of God’ and not “lawn is wet”?

        Also, what does this have to do with not only Truth-searching, but 
Truth-finding?



        That is, if Truth is, as Edwina says:

        “…is it rather the case that this semiosis activity must continue on, 
for some time until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O 
Relation?  Isn't this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?”



        then as Jon says, the hypothesis or the proposition should matter.  



        So, what is O?  What is R?  What is I?  

        That is, how can the R-O relation meet the I-O without the premisses?



        I think without this, there is no getting at the Truth or Reality of 
things, since 

        “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who 
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this 
opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality”.



        I believe this, irrespective of the attitude I adopt, since it is the 
method, which also must be adopted.  For without a method, then we’re right 
back to arguing with no course for how to determine a good hypothesis from a 
bad one.  



        Best,

        Jerry Rhee



        On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:



            On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 
wrote:


            Clark- thanks for your very nice outline of the NA - I certainly 
agree with your view, that as Chiasson says, it's not just about a 'belief in 
God', because it's not deductive but is, as noted, abductive. Abduction inserts 
freedom and spontaneity - attributes outside of the range of a God. And agreed 
- the NA doesn't offer 'compelling reasons for why we should call this ens 
necessarium as god. I, as an atheist, prefer his outline of Mind as the ens 
necessarium. 

            As Mind is an action of Reasoning [within all three modes], then, I 
think that ethics is grounded within it. You don't, in my reading, require a 
God, for ethics.


          It’s worth noting the connection here between Peirce and Spinoza. Of 
course that could be indirect since many of the early German idealists like 
Hegel were highly influenced by Spinoza. But I’ve long thought the direct 
influence was significant. 


          For a good paper on the influence see


          
http://www.commens.org/sites/default/files/biblio_attachments/peirce_and_spinozas_pragmaticist_metaphysics.pdf
 


          Spinoza of course explicitly calls his unity God and ties it to 
ethics. However the Jewish rabbis disagreed and thought him an atheists leading 
to his excommunication. 


          That gets again to my point that the *name* God seems to be the 
dispute rather than the content. That said though many post Peircean figures 
strongly want to call God as God while giving his nature freedom and 
spontaneity. The process theology movement that started with Whitehead being 
the most obvious philosophical example although there were others. Later 
process theologians were explicitly influenced by Peirce despite many of 
Peirce’s writings being difficult to find at the time.






          -----------------------------
          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 .




-----------------------------
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