I retract my offending term “getting better,” if indeed that and not the concept of meliorism is what you refer to. I understand evolution neither heedlessly nor blindly but “by virtue of the continuity of mind,” as Peirce claims in your quote below. By the way, George Eliot is one of the great minds of the century and though a novelist, an occupation considered pejoratively often on the list, her ideas pertain to the prior discussion on the list as to who coined the term meliorism. I do not suggest Eliot was referring to a moment or an individual but the history of archeology—part of the theme of and occupation of a major character. She credits herself as coining the word. Thus my contribution, not geared towards defining the term but answering the comments about the word. By the way, my reference to Eliot’s name of a location was what I hoped would be a glance askance. If it helps, omit my crude and hurriedly made, terse phrase. The point is really about the term neologism, a thread which I did not start.
My apologies for my defensiveness of Eliot. I urge members read it for her elucidation of the philosophy. Mary Libertin On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:00 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > List > > My own view is one of caution about considering that agapastic evolution , > or 'evolutionary love' means 'improvement'. > > Peirce's view of agapasm is that adaptation and change develop "not > altogether heedlessly as in tychasm, nor quite blindly by the mere force of > circumstances or of logic as in anancasm, but by an immediate attraction of > the idea itself, whose nature is divined before the mind possesses it, by > theh power of sympathy, that is, by virtue of the continuity of mind" 6.307. > > Since 'all matter is mind' - then, it is that universal Mind that is the > generating force of evolutionary love - with the understanding that since > 'all that exists is a Sign' then, everything is networked and connected. > But, to me, all that this means is that the METHOD of change is not random > nor mechanical, but interactive and collaborative. That's all. > > To me, this has nothing to do with the idea of 'things getting better' > within either the natural or societal realm. I think those are problematic > words. Can we assign, as Peirce noted with regard to Darwinian theories, > 'politico-economic views of progress' to the entire world of animal and > vegetable life"? 6.293? > > Can we further assign biological evolution to the politico-economic and > societal world? I acknowledge that we have enabled a world population of > billions rather than thousands or millions. But I remain very cautious > about the idea of a utopian world - for utopian politico-economic-societal > realms tend to rapidly become totalitarian, with their insistence on > homogeneity of Type - and so far, tend to evolve to an Animal Farm > scenario. That is, idealism without pragmatism is dangerous. > > Edwina > > > > On Thu 14/12/17 2:50 PM , Mary Libertin [email protected] sent: > > Dear Peirce list, > > The term MELIORISM was first used by George Eliot (Maryanne Evans). I > first found it while reading it in her mid-1800s masterpiece _Middlemarch_ > (but my 1980 paperback is somewhere hidden in my trove along with my OED, > which I think credits Eliot with the First use). I recall thinking the > novel’s location near “egg” is significant. I have her 3 vol of Letters > where she states she believed she coined the term. This is confirmed in my > current research today. I believe Eliot’s concept of meliorism is very > similar to Peirce’s concept of evolutionary love. The belief in the idea > that things can improve over time has been mentioned in relation to her > feminism and the feminism of Emily Dickinson. The concept is fertile ground > for pragmatism. > > Mary > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:05 AM Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Agreed. It's an excellent notion -- with maybe a nod to the arc being a >> bit stronger than any counter-currents. Fits in with continuity, >> fallibility and warrants inclusion in a notion of what Peirce is up to. It >> is realistic! Look at what's happening now. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Franklin, Gary f, list, >>> >>> You may be correct as most references to 'meliorism' I found were to >>> James or Dewey. >>> >>> Although I wouldn't make too much of it, Mats Bergman wrote a paper, >>> "Improving Our Habits: Peirce and Meliorism," in which he includes a >>> definition of 'meliorism' from the Century Dictionary which, he believes, >>> may be by Peirce. >>> >>> (1) “[the] improvement of society by regulated practical means: opposed >>> to the passive principle of both pessimism and optimism”; or (2) “[the] >>> doctrine that the world is neither the worst nor the best possible, but >>> that it is capable of improvement: a mean between theoretical pessimism and >>> optimism” >>> >>> http://www.helsinki.fi/peirce/MC/papers/Bergman%20-%20Peirce%20and%20Meliorism.pdf >>> >>> >>> In a footnote he remarks that Francoise Latraverse suggested to that the >>> second definition especially seems altogether Peircean. >>> >>> I'm not sure where I got my sense that meliorism was a Peircean concept >>> as searches of the CP, EP, etc. have not yielded any instances of the word. >>> I haven't read much James, I must admit, but at one point I was reading a >>> great deal of Dewey and may have gotten the notion from him >>> >>> Be that as it may, I think that there is a great deal in Peirce which is >>> compatible with an attitude and philosophy of meliorism, that, for example, >>> wherever it is up to us to put our shoulder to some task towards improving >>> our human lot that we ought do that. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> >>> [image: Blocked image] >>> >> >>> Gary Richmond >>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking >>> Communication Studies >>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >>> 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> Franklin, I think you’re right about James; as for Peirce’s use of the >>>> term, all I can find is this bit from the Robin Catalogue: >>>> >>>> 953. [First and Second Conversazione] >>>> >>>> A. MS., n.p., n.d., pp. 1-8, with variants. >>>> >>>> The three views of knowledge: Epicurean, pessimistic, and melioristic. >>>> Second conversazione is on the idea of clearness. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gary f. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> >>>> Sent: 13-Dec-17 22:57 >>>> >>>> Gary, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I thought meliorism was a term introduced by William James, not CSP. I >>>> believe James discusses it in his latter Pragmatism lectures, and >>>> references his son as providing the term to him. It appears to have the >>>> same meaning that you say CSP ascribed to it. Did CSP also adopt this term? >>>> Where does he mention it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> — Franklin >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2017, at 11:17 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> Mary, list, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mary, if you're a clodhopper than I'm a bumpkin. But, of course, quite >>>> the opposite is the case, so I'm spared for yokeldom! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> More and more I hope that this forum can find ways, as you wrote, to >>>> help "newcomers to Peirce to feel welcome," and I personally am devising >>>> strategies to do more of that in the new year. For example, I am working >>>> with Laureano Battista (a NYC Semiotics Web member/organizer who is also a >>>> member of this forum), and bouncing off Joe Ransdell's original >>>> introduction on 'How the Forum Works' (which can be found on the Peirce-L >>>> page of Arisbe <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM> >>>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM ) to develop a >>>> perhaps more "user friendly" introduction to the working of this forum. I >>>> am also planning a few 'pragmaticist' games for the new year (I won't say >>>> more on that topic yet, but I'll be soliciting help from you and others on >>>> this idea early in the year). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But more to the present point, recently, in other threads, several >>>> forum members offered some very interesting questions which I thought were >>>> quite promising for further list discussion. I hope that some of those >>>> folks will start new threads with these questions, some of which I think >>>> ought appeal to "newcomers to Peirce" as well as to "the usual suspects." I >>>> point to this matter of creating new threads as it is possible for some >>>> very good ideas to get 'lost' in a thread introduced for some other >>>> purpose. So I hope those questions will yet be asked in threads with very >>>> specific Subject lines. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You wrote: >>>> >>>> ML: What attracts me to Peirce is the awe I feel and the depth and >>>> breadth of his journey to understand and to believe in the movement of >>>> semiosis. It is makes so much sense. . . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree that a kind of belief "in the movement of semiosis" does make >>>> much sense, and from my perspective, more sense than any other >>>> philosophical work since the 19th century (although there's much to >>>> admire elsewhere, including the work of Whitehead, Apel, some of the >>>> existentialists, Camus, Wittgenstein, as well as much contemporary work.) >>>> This is why I think some of the questions recently asked (but not answered) >>>> might provoke us to deeper reflections on how this profound and original >>>> philosophy of pragmaticism (and including all the cenoscopic sciences: >>>> phenomenology, theoretical esthetics/ethics/semiotic, as well as scientific >>>> metaphysics) might contribute something of substance to what Peirce refers >>>> to as meliorism, which is nothing more nor less than the belief that the >>>> world we live in can be made better by our very human, albeit, often sadly, >>>> "all too human" (Nietzsche), efforts. Pragmatism ought to have some very >>>> important to contribute to meliorism, and this was Peirce's belief. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I see a commonality in your work relating Peircean perspectives to >>>> literature to Gene Halton's, and I think literature, as well as art, and >>>> music, etc., are all potentially fruitful directions for semiotics and >>>> pragmatism to be moving into (Gene is also, and perhaps primarily, a >>>> sociologist, and I recommend his books to everyone on this list, as >>>> pragmatism has a great deal to offer that field as well). We have artists >>>> and art theorists, architects, and practitioners and students of many >>>> disciplines on this list, and I hope to find ways of encouraging more of >>>> them to participate actively on the list in 2018. But, again, lurkers >>>> are prized! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, the extraordinary work that Gary f has been doing in >>>> presenting the whole of the 1903 Lowell Lectures and, in my view, very >>>> useful commentary (even if one doesn't necessarily agree with all of it) >>>> presently remains my primary focus. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gary R >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Blocked image] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gary Richmond >>>> >>>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking >>>> >>>> Communication Studies >>>> >>>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >>>> >>>> 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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> >>>> 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> >>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- > null > > -- null
----------------------------- 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 .
