Edwina, List: The denial of absolute truth is self-defeating; to assert that "absolute truth is impossible" is to affirm an absolute truth. I also note for the record that you did not preface that statement with any of the disclaimers that you have been urging upon the rest of us.
In any case, once again you seem to be overlooking my (and Peirce's) explicit acknowledgement that the state of *Substantial* Information--corresponding to absolute truth, the ultimate Interpretant of every Sign, and infallible Habits of Interpretation--is an *ideal*, a regulative hope, that will never *actually *be achieved. CSP: There is, then, to every question a true answer, a final conclusion, to which the opinion of every man is constantly gravitating. He may for a time recede from it, but give him more experience and time for consideration, and he will finally approach it. The individual may not live to reach the truth; there is a residuum of error in every individual's opinions. No matter; it remains that there is a definite opinion to which the mind of man is, on the whole and in the long run, tending. On many questions the final agreement is already reached, on all it will be reached if time enough is given. The arbitrary will or other individual peculiarities of a sufficiently large number of minds may postpone the general agreement in that opinion indefinitely; but it cannot affect what the character of that opinion shall be when it is reached. This final opinion, then, is independent, not indeed of thought in general, but of all that is arbitrary and individual in thought; is quite independent of how you, or I, or any number of men think. (CP 8.12; 1871) Adopting your recent characterization, we are *always *in the "DI phase of analysis," the state of *Experiential *Information. However, this does not entail that there is no absolute truth *at all*, nor that we have not attained it on any matter whatsoever. On the contrary, as Peirce himself said ... CSP: In the first place, then, upon innumerable questions, we have already reached the final opinion. How do we know that? Do we fancy ourselves infallible? Not at all; but throwing off as probably erroneous a thousandth or even a hundredth of all the beliefs established beyond present doubt, there must remain a vast multitude in which the final opinion has been reached. Every directory, guide-book, dictionary, history, and work of science is crammed with such facts. (CP 8.43; c. 1885) Nevertheless, it is certainly not *my *agenda "to find the ultimate or final truth of the meaning of Peirce's work." I am simply trying to make sense of it for myself, and then offer the results of those efforts to others for their consideration and comment. I earnestly desire more feedback on what I have posted in this thread so far. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > John, list > > And from your post - I conclude that not merely 'absolute precision' is > impossible, but by that notion, absolute truth is impossible since > 'continuous variation subsists'. ..which means - no final Truth. > > Therefore - the agenda of some to find the ultimate or final truth of the > meaning of Peirce's work which will then stand as The Final Word On Peirce > - is not possible. Such ultimate finality seems to me to occur only within > mathematics, pure logic or the natural laws of physics and chemistry - and > even these realms must be open to questions. Other explorations in 'what is > reality' - which includes the complex semiosis of Peirce within his > examination of the triad and the categories are subject to that fact that > 'absolute precision is impossible'. > > This doesn't mean relativism; it doesn't mean nominalism; it means instead > that our 'intellectual conceptions' must be offered as open > interpretations by one person, open to questions and different views and > not defined as 'the truth'. > > Edwina > > On Wed 01/08/18 5:33 PM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent: > > On 8/1/2018 4:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > each interpreting Quasi-mind is always in a different state > > of Experiential Information from any other--including the same > > Quasi-mind at a different time. > > Yes. And following is a related quotation by Peirce: > > > The vague might be defined as that to which the principle of > > contradiction does not apply... But wherever degree or any > > other possibility of continuous variation subsists, absolute > > precision is impossible. Much else must be vague, because no > > man’s interpretation of words is based on exactly the same > > experience as any other man’s. Even in our most intellectual > > conceptions, the more we strive to be precise, the more > > unattainable precision seems. It should never be forgotten > > that our own thinking is carried on as a dialogue, and though > > mostly in a lesser degree, is subject to almost every imperfection > > of language. (CP 5:505-506) > > 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 [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 .
