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:jerryr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM
To: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
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 
<s...@bestweb.net<mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> 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 
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send 
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to 
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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