Stephen, list:
That was very nice. You said: “Thinking is what consciousness does…” And Peirce said: “…the whole logical form of *thought* is so given in its elements… These are obviously simply forms of Thirdness, Secondness, and Firstness… … the conception of inference, the conception of otherness, and the conception of a character.” ~ *Lecture VII* Clearly, ordering matters. If you seek to understand how such things are subsumed in the Peircean maxim, then I would suggest looking toward Peirce’s gift. Best, Jerry R On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > Thinking is what consciousness does. While it may be the case that most > things rise from the vague and might appear in a form different than words, > there is nothing fixed about that. By the time a thought achieves what I > would call an indexical status, it is most of time a word or phrase which > becomes the subject of an inquiry one has within oneself. > > In my efforts, I determine that the index consist of values and I submit > any thought to these values. That index I would call a second stage of > thought. > > When that ethical interaction is complete, chronology leads to a final or > third stage when the considered sign (word) is examined from the standpoint > of actualization — what I will do or say (or both) as a result of the > consideration. I call this the aesthetic phase because I see aesthetic as > doing, as action, as the making of such history as we may make. > > The need to order or rank modes of perception — images, words, geometric > forms — seems to me subsumed in the Peirce maxim that all thinking is in > signs. I am not sure what he means, but I am reasonably sure that he would > admit words and images and forms are all necessary aspects of consciousness > and give to words the due their existence seems to demand. > > Words are the basis of language. Consciousness is inherently linguistic. > There are non verbal languages but they are not the general rule for > ordinary communication. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jerry - I'm sure you are joking. The format of a syllogism is: >> Major Premise >> Minor Premise >> Conclusion >> ...with the additional format rules about 'universal', distribution, >> negatives, etc etc..' Nothing to do with words per se. >> >> Words are meaningful, in my view, only in specific contexts; they gain >> their meaning within the context...and the context operates within a format. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* John Collier <[email protected]> ; Benjamin Udell >> <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 2:02 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >> >> Dear Edwina, list: >> >> When you say it's not the words but the format that counts; is that like >> saying, it's not the argumentation but the argument that counts? >> >> For example, do you mean that it's CP 5.189 that counts and not C A B? >> But what is CP 5.189 without C A B? >> And what is C, A, B, without >> syllogism, CP 5.189, growth of concrete reasonableness? >> pragmatic maxim, CP 5.189, growth of concrete reasonableness? >> >> That is, if I were only to take you literally, then I could ask, >> >> *Among all words, is there a word?* >> >> Best, >> Jerry Rhee >> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, Jerry, I don't agree. It's not the words; it's the format that >>> counts. People think, not so much in words, but in images and diagrams .... >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* John Collier <[email protected]> ; Benjamin Udell >>> <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 1:25 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >>> >>> Dear list: >>> >>> >>> >>> If words are only birds, then: >>> >>> >>> >>> “CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism!” >>> >>> >>> >>> “CP 5.189 is not *the* pragmatic maxim, nor even *a* pragmatic maxim in >>> the same sense, so it is certainly not *the best* pragmatic maxim.” >>> >>> >>> >>> 5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. ~Tractatus >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, Jerry R >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Very nice comments, John. I fully agree: 'words are birds' - and some >>>> of the focus on this list on 'this word' having 'just that meaning' has >>>> been, in my view, unfruitful...because it ignores what's going on within >>>> that semiosic action. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* John Collier <[email protected]> >>>> *To:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> ; [email protected] >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:40 PM >>>> *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >>>> >>>> Interesting, Ben. How words change in meaning and connotation. Although >>>> mist of the negative references are to the medical use, some of them >>>> certainly apply to a sort of (Francis) Baconian science. Thanks for posting >>>> this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I said, I was referring to the method, not the word. As my Tai Chi >>>> master was fond of saying, “Words are birds”, and he changed the meanings >>>> for basic movements just to help us focus on what really mattered. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting that some of the definitions have the modern meaning of >>>> both evidence and meanings being grounded in the senses, but still have >>>> negative connotations. I suppose that the rise of positivism in the late >>>> 1800s was somewhat instrumental in (slowly) changing attitudes. Full blown >>>> logical empiricism arises only with verificationism, which I think was the >>>> biggest error ever made by otherwise sensible philosophers. We are still >>>> suffering the consequences. I hasten to add that, although he was sometimes >>>> read that way (perhaps, for example, by Rescher and Putnam) Peirce was no >>>> verificationist. We see remnants in opposition views to logical positivism >>>> that try to reduce things to social phenomena, which I see as making >>>> precisely the same error. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am no empiricist in this modern sense, the one I contrasted with >>>> rationalism originally in this thread. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Collier >>>> >>>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate >>>> >>>> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal >>>> >>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Benjamin Udell [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 11 February 2017 10:35 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even in the days of the Century Dictionary (late 19th to early 20th >>>> Century), "empiric" and "empirical" had rather negative connotations. See >>>> the definitions of "empiric," "empirical," and related terms that I >>>> compiled at a website some years ago: >>>> >>>> http://peircematters.blogspot.com/#empir >>>> >>>> So empiricists in the modern sense would not have been fond of calling >>>> themselves "empiricists" way back when. >>>> >>>> Best, Ben >>>> >>>> On 2/11/2017 2:06 PM, John Collier wrote: >>>> >>>> The reference is to the method, not the word. There is an historical >>>> continuity between the Medieval empiricists like Roger Bacon, and Galen’s >>>> followers (he died about 299 AD (who go back to Arabic predecessors, >>>> perhaps influenced by Galen – medical usage, of course, but he seemed to >>>> extend it in his views of the natural world) and the later ones who came >>>> to called The British Empiricists, though not by that name at that time. On >>>> source puts the general use of the modern accepted sense at 1796, well >>>> after the British Empiricists. >>>> >>>> Typical definition: >>>> >>>> empiricist >>>> ɛmˈpɪrɪsɪst/ >>>> PHILOSOPHY >>>> noun >>>> 1. >>>> a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on >>>> experience derived from the senses. >>>> "most scientists are empiricists by nature" >>>> adjective >>>> 1. >>>> relating to or characteristic of the theory that all knowledge is based >>>> on experience derived from the senses. >>>> "his radically empiricist view of science as a direct engagement with >>>> the world" >>>> >>>> The term in its present form originated in 1660-70; some say about >>>> 1700. If you think that words determine thoughts, than there was no >>>> empiricism except in medicine before these dates. >>>> >>>> Aristotle had some things I common with empiricists, but his >>>> requirement for a rationalist/ essentialist middle term undermined that >>>> because it required the active nour. The Medieval ones gave that up. But so >>>> did many of the stoics, who were therefore empiricists. >>>> >>>> The term goes back to the Greeks, not that I think that some magic >>>> connects terms to ideas: >>>> >>>> Etymology >>>> The English term empirical derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, >>>> empeiria, which is cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, >>>> from which are derived the word experience and the related experiment. The >>>> term was used by the Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, >>>> who rejected the three doctrines of the Dogmatic school, preferring to rely >>>> on the observation of "phenomena".[5] >>>> >>>> NB the restriction to medicine here, similar to the early restriction >>>> of semiotics to medicine. >>>> >>>> Peirce relevance: Peirce is usually included among those who tried to >>>> combine elements of empiricism and rationalism, though for my money he >>>> doesn’t fit either camp very well >>>> >>>> In any case, the recent attempts on this list to try to tie empiricism >>>> to the use of the word are pretty poor examples of scholarship. >>>> >>>> John Collier >>>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University >>>> of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] >>>> <[email protected]>] >>>> > Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 5:58 PM >>>> > To: Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> > Cc: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; John >>>> Collier >>>> > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Peirce-L >>>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
