Thanks for clarifying. I doubt I will gain any ground if I say all signs
are real and that al thought is in signs. But I do in fact maintain that
things as abstruse as suppositional theological words are real. Sings
themselves vary of course and cannot in my view be characterized. Here's an
example. Lee Harvey Oswald reads a squib of the supposition that only
exists because it is written somewhere and it sets off a train of thought
that eventuates in a scholar taking this account to be the most salient
possible reason for acts attributed to him by Mr. Posner and others. My
point is simply that reality has all sorts of permutations and that to
disclude things is to complexify. Everything is real and some things are
more real than other. Reality is a spectrum just as ethics is. Or so I
think.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> Stephen, list:
>
> This refers to the 'reality' of belief - as outlined by Peirce in his
> Fixation of Belief.
>
> In my view, a belief is - as you say, supposition. It does not function in
> the realm of facts. However, since, as Peirce also pointed out, our
> universe operates within the mode of Reason [Thirdness], then - can we
> presume that all of our beliefs are not merely logical but also - real?
> That is - because we rationally THINK of something, does this make that
> belief a reality? The same kind of reality as, for instance, the reality of
> generals - which are the commonality of the instantiation?
>
> I don't think that we can conclude that IF we think of something, THEN,
> this means that 'something' is real. That would commit the error of
> 'affirming the consequent'. We can't declare that something is real.
> BECAUSE we think of it. Therefore - my view is that views of 'the divine'
> or any name you want to call it - can only be beliefs. And this is what I
> see as a key problem: definitions. Until we define what we mean by our
> terms, such as 'God' , 'theism', ...then, our arguments for or against them
> are empty and subjective.
>
>  Peirce himself called this 'force' by many names, eg, Nature, as 'in 'Can
> there be the slightest hesitation in saying, then, that the human intellect
> is implanted in man, either by a creator or by a quasi-intentional effect
> of the struggle for existence?...and "among the inscrutable purposes of God
> or the virtual purposes of nature" [8.211] ..."Man seems to himself to have
> some glimmer of co-understanding with God, or with Nature" [8.212]. And see
> 6.502, where Peirce writes that 'the analogue of a mind...is what he means
> by "God".
>
> In the scientific realm, which is built around the acceptance of the use
> of reason, when we come up with a hypothesis - this must then be tested
> within the existential world. As Peirce said, "deduction is certain but
> relates only to ideal objects" [8.209] So, "induction gives us the only
> approach to certainty concerning the real that we can have
> [ibid].... Therefore, my point is that claims based around only deduction
> remain beliefs - held by tenacity or authority - but still, only beliefs.
>
> But are our beliefs only valid - and I mean valid as differentiated from
> 'real' - if they can be empirically proven? I think that as a species,
> almost unique in our requirement for social networking and our use of
> symbolic language - then, beliefs are necessary for social stability and
> even, our individual psychological health. Again, this does not make our
> beliefs 'real'; it makes them socially valid - and, as such, open to change
> when the societal need for them changes.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu 17/05/18 5:17 AM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com sent:
>
> In Triadic Philosophy if something is a matter of supposition like theism
> the definition will not be anything more than supposition. Wittgenstein
> understood this. This is why TP calls this mystery. It is real but it is
> also a mystery. We can talk about our experience of what we call the divine
> or any other name you want to give it. The replies to my post about life
> beyond this planet are similar to posts about theism. They reference
> mystery. Since we have no proof we do not know. It is just as
> significant that something is not present as that it is. The triadic maxim
> says the substance is practical and ordinary and accessible. That is what I
> drive at. Everything else to me is binary thinking that often shields
> another purpose than arriving at truth and beauty which I take to be the
> aim of al consideration. You can reply to this in the list if you think it
> is worth noting. Otherwise no problem. Cheers, S
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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