Dear list,


This conversation is so esthetically pleasing.


The books do seem so feeble…

Esthetics and logic seem, at first blush, to belong to different universes.

It is only very recently that I have become persuaded that that seeming is
illusory, and that, on the contrary, logic needs the help of esthetics.

The matter is not yet very clear to me; so unless some great light should
fall upon me before I reach that chapter, it will be a short one filled
with doubts and queries mainly..



With best wishes,

Jerry R


On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:

>
>
> Sorry, I think it was wrong supposing platonic idealism to you. But truth
> is a complicated subject. I donot think, that a sign denotes a certain true
> thing. Signs can be unclear, denoting something not yet specified. In the
> future there may be bifurcations: Concepts can split up. I can see truth
> only in the path, not in the goal. Seeing life not as open-end-evolution,
> but as approximation towards an asymptote, wouldn´t that be boring hell?
> And real blasphemy, I would say: God as a clockmaker.
> Jon, List,
> I guess, our truth concepts differ slightly. Maybe it is about platonic
> idealism versus transcendental pragmatism. Does the "meta"- thing in
> metaphysics consist of many discrete blueprints, or is it just one simple
> rule? Is entelechy a complicated, obscure force we cannot analyse, or is it
> a reasonable principle of nature we might understand? Because "Logos" is
> logical?
> Best, Helmut
>
>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Helmut, List:
>
> Again, in this context, the concepts of truth and perfection are ideals or
> regulative hopes.  A Sign is truthful or perfect to the extent that it
> conforms to its Object, and we can recognize lying Signs only because there
> are such truthful Signs.  A lying Sign takes advantage of our Collateral
> Experience with actual Things and real Qualities, but connects them in a
> way that *does not* constitute Entelechy, the *genuine *unity of Matter
> and Form.  Fortunately, inquiry tends to be self-correcting, whether we
> like it or not; the "outward clash" confronts us with unpleasant surprises
> when our beliefs--manifested as our Habits of Interpretation--are false.
>
>
> CSP:  ... the objectivity of truth really consists in the fact that, in
> the end, every sincere inquirer will be led to embrace it--and if he be not
> sincere, the irresistible effect of inquiry in the light of experience will
> be to make him so ... I hold that truth's independence of individual
> opinions is due (so far as there is any "truth") to its being the
> predestined result to which sufficient inquiry *would *ultimately lead.
> (CP 5.494, EP 2:419; 1907)
>
>
> Only at the ultimate limit--in the *infinite *future, which will never
> arrive--would the final opinion *perfectly *coincide with the Absolute
> Truth.
>
>
> CSP:  The true and perfect reality, the very thing, is the thing as it
> might be truly represented, as it would be truly represented were thought
> carried to its last perfection. As a perissid curve passing further and
> further toward the positive side traversed infinity and appears coming
> nearer and nearer from the negative side, so thought passing always from
> object to interpretation at its extremest point reaches the absolute
> reality of objectivity. The real and true thing is the thing as it might be
> known to be. (NEM 4:300; 1904)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Jon, List,
>> I agree and try to correct myself. A sign has to do with truth. Your post
>> seems to me as a generalization of Karl Otto Apel´s "Letztbegründung der
>> Diskursethik" (Final foundation of discourse ethics?) from human discourse
>> towards communications, signs, in general. But with this point and the way
>> you put it, each and every sign is connected to truth somehow, and there
>> cannot be a distinction between perfect and imperfect signs. If truth is
>> being looked for by every sign, but achieved by none, who could justifiedly
>> assign a perfection value to a sign, or define a perfection scale for signs?
>>
>> One more complication: If the sign is a lie, then the final interpretant
>> is a lie too, not the truth. Except one might say: It is the truth that
>> this lie is put up, or: It is the truth that people believe in this sign or
>> are influenced by it. But you hardly can say, that the sign is perfect or
>> true. Maybe in his time, Karl Otto Apel could not foresee how bold and
>> unscrupulous people today design alternative facts and forge signs of them.
>> But these signs are rid of (regulative) hope, thank you for this term, and
>> I think it is justified to hope, that in a false sign the absence of
>> regulative hope is easily detectable.
>> Best, Helmut
>>
>>  10. März 2018 um 22:50 Uhr
>>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
>>
>> Helmut, Edwina, List:
>>
>>
>> HR:  I do not think, that a sign has to do with truth ... Truth is a
>> concept of transcendental philosophy, but not of sign theory, I think.
>>
>>
>> And yet Peirce stated quite plainly, "Every sign that is sufficiently
>> complete refers to sundry real objects ... [that] are parts of one and the
>> same Universe of being, the 'Truth' ... All these characters are elements
>> of the 'Truth.'  Every sign signifies the 'Truth' ... The 'Truth,' the fact
>> that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every
>> sign" (EP 2:304).  It seems to me that Peirce himself considered Signs and
>> Sign-theory as having *everything *to do with truth.
>>
>>
>> ET:  I suggest that the very idea of 'perfection', 'the perfect sign',
>> etc, is the antithesis of Peircean semiosis.
>>
>>
>> And yet Peirce stated quite plainly, "We may adopt the word [entelechy]
>> to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite
>> perfect, and so identical,--in such identity as a sign may have,--with the
>> very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it" (EP 2:304);
>> and he later drafted a lengthy definition of "a *perfect *sign" (EP
>> 2:545n25).  It seems to me that Peirce himself considered the very idea of
>> perfection (i.e., Entelechy; cf. NEM 4:292-300) to be an *essential
>> aspect* of Peircean semiosis.
>>
>>
>> ET:  That is - there is no Final State of Perfection ... There can be no
>> necessitarian perfection or 'final state'.
>>
>>
>> Who has stated or implied otherwise?  As Gary R. just pointed out, the
>> text that I quoted clearly treats perfection as an ideal, a *regulative
>> hope*.  It is much like Peirce's notion of "the final opinion," which
>> will never *actually *be achieved, either.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> List -
>>>
>>>  I would agree with the concerns expressed about the notion of
>>> 'perfection'. I suggest that the very idea of 'perfection', 'the perfect
>>> sign', etc, is the antithesis of Peircean semiosis.
>>>
>>> The fact that there are three categorical modes, suggests a system that
>>> is innately capable of infinite growth, complexity, diversity - and Peirce
>>> himsels says this, referring to "the phenomenon of growth and developing
>>> complexity, which appears to be universal" 6.64. That is - there is no
>>> Final State of Perfection, for the reality of growth and complexity prevent
>>> such a linear and closed path.
>>>
>>> That is, the mode of Firstness provides a constant source of novelty,
>>> spontaneity, chance, freshness - which would provide a deviation from any
>>> stable format. The mode of Thirdness functions both to constantly reduce
>>> diversity, mould commonality and generality - and this too would again,
>>> provide a method of deviation from any stable format [of perfection]. The
>>> mode of Secondness, with its focus on the particular and the linear, is
>>> frankly the only mode that would be available for a path-to-perfection,
>>> but not only does it not exist alone - Peircean semiosis has three modes -
>>> but its very individuality precludes perfection.
>>>
>>> And the fact that semiosis is triadic, with a mediative node that
>>> transforms the DO to the II/DI - means that this is a constantly
>>> interactive and individual semiosis which is transformative and
>>> complex rather than linear. There can be no necessitarian perfection or
>>> 'final state'.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> List,
>>> I do not think, that a sign has to do with truth (aka perfection,
>>> nonquasiness, geninunity...). It has to do with force, need, or volition,
>>> depending on the utterer-interpreter-weldedness, whether it/she/he/they
>>> is/are nonorganic, organic, or nervous. Truth is a concept of
>>> transcendental philosophy, but not of sign theory, I think. Best, Helmut
>>>
>> ----------------------------- 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