Jerry, there are various differently stated versions of the pragmatic maxim, and it is also implicit in other work by Peirce.
One way of putting the maxim is that any difference in meaning implies a difference in the possibilities of (external) experience on which they are grounded. You can experience this as a feeling (what might be true) as an inferred difference, or as an explanation of the difference. Of course, separating the three except in the abstract, is impossible. That is what I meant when I said I thought Edwina was right about inseperability. She may have meant more or less that I didn’t notice. This sort of thinking is found throughout Peirce’s writing. I don’t think there are any grounds for controversy about that. The interesting thing to me, in this case, is that it can be applied reflectively. John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM To: John F Sowa <[email protected]> Cc: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology John Collier, list: You said: I agree with Edwina that all three elements are involved in the pragmatic maxim. Do you mind stating where, in the pragmatic maxim, it says this? I'm not questioning whether it is or not. I'm just not sure to what you are referring. Thank you, Jerry R On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 10/15/2016 9:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: Since I am rejecting a metaphysical origin [God] as the origin of the universe, I stick with the Big Bang for now. I agree with Heraclitus and my namesake, John the Evangelist: Heraclitus wrote about the logos — translated variously as word, speech, or reason: "all things (panta) come into being according to this logos." The Greek concept of logos, which can also be translated account, reckoning, or even computation is broad enough to encompass all the abstractions of mathematics, metaphysics, and the sciences. A few centuries after Heraclitus, John the Evangelist wrote "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and God was the logos. It was in the beginning with God. All things (panta) came into being through it, and without it nothing that has come to be came into being" (1,1-3). John and Heraclitus used the same words logos, panta, and gignomai (come to be). What they meant by those words, however, has been a matter of debate for millennia. As a realist, I believe that the logos exists. To relate it to modern science and to Peirce, I believe that the logos is the truth that is the goal of unrestricted inquiry by unlimited generations of "scientific intelligence" by which Peirce meant any intelligence that is capable of learning from experience. John ----------------------------- 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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]<mailto:[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 .
