Dear Stephen, list, A certain maxim of Logic which I have called Pragmatism has recommended itself to me for divers reasons and on sundry considerations. Having taken it as my guide in most of my thought, I find that as the years of my knowledge of it lengthen, my sense of the importance of it presses upon me more and more. If it is only true, it is certainly a wonderfully efficient instrument. It is not to philosophy only that it is applicable. I have found it of signal service in every branch of science that I have studied. My want of skill in practical affairs does not prevent me from perceiving the advantage of being well imbued with pragmatism in the conduct of life.
Best, Jerry R On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:07 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand the omni aspect of Peirce's sense of semiotics - but it > really needs to be made the basis of global pedagogy with some > interpretation of how it all fits together that ordinary folk can > understand. > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 7:39 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Stephen, list >> >> Peirce used the terms 'genuine' and 'degenerate' to refer to what we >> might define as 'pure' and 'mixed' categories. >> >> I don't think that he confined his semiosis to human beings. I think that >> his semiosis was an action of Mind - and Mind, as he wrote is not confined >> to human beings. >> >> "Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the >> work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world" 4.551. >> >> Is intentionality agapistic? I'd say ' yes'. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> On Tue 16/04/19 7:25 PM , Stephen Curtiss Rose [email protected] sent: >> >> Good to see intentionality and thirdness. Is genuineness his term? >> >> I would like to assume that Peirce built a philosophy whose end is indeed >> intention and that the primary intenders are human beings. Is there any >> instance where Peirce suggests this? If so is the intention agapaic? >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:50 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> The clearest test for a genuine Thirdness is the presence of some >>> intentionality -- of some animate being or of some law of nature. >>> I like the examples Peirce cited in CP 1.366 below. >>> >>> General principle: Intentionality by some animate agent is always >>> a genuine Thirdness. That agent may be as simple as a bacterium >>> swimming upstream in a glucose gradient. In CP 1.366, Peirce says >>> that a law of nature is "intelligence objectified" -- that makes it >>> the equivalent of an intention. >>> >>> If you do a global search of CP, you'll get about 148 instances of >>> "intention" or some word that includes it as part. Representation >>> is a special case of intentionality. In many of the examples, the >>> intentionality is clear, but representation is less obvious. >>> >>> John >>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> CP 1.366. Among thirds, there are two degrees of degeneracy. The first >>> is where there is in the fact itself no Thirdness or mediation, but >>> where there is true duality; the second degree is where there is not >>> even true Secondness in the fact itself. Consider, first, the thirds >>> degenerate in the first degree. A pin fastens two things together by >>> sticking through one and also through the other: either might be >>> annihilated, and the pin would continue to stick through the one which >>> remained. A mixture brings its ingredients together by containing each. >>> We may term these accidental thirds. "How did I slay thy son?" asked the >>> merchant, and the jinnee replied, "When thou threwest away the >>> date-stone, it smote my son, who was passing at the time, on the breast, >>> and he died forthright." Here there were two independent facts, first >>> that the merchant threw away the date-stone, and second that the >>> date-stone struck and killed the jinnee's son. Had it been aimed at him, >>> the case would have been different; for then there would have been a >>> relation of aiming which would have connected together the aimer, the >>> thing aimed, and the object aimed at, in one fact. What monstrous >>> injustice and inhumanity on the part of that jinnee to hold that poor >>> merchant responsible for such an accident! I remember how I wept at it, >>> as I lay in my father's arms and he first told me the story. It is >>> certainly just that a man, even though he had no evil intention, should >>> be held responsible for the immediate effects of his actions; but not >>> for such as might result from them in a sporadic case here and there, >>> but only for such as might have been guarded against by a reasonable >>> rule of prudence. Nature herself often supplies the place of the >>> intention of a rational agent in making a Thirdness genuine and not >>> merely accidental; as when a spark, as third, falling into a barrel of >>> gunpowder, as first, causes an explosion, as second. But how does nature >>> do this? By virtue of an intelligible law according to which she acts. >>> If two forces are combined according to the parallelogram of forces, >>> their resultant is a real third. Yet any force may, by the >>> parallelogram of forces, be mathematically resolved into the sum of two >>> others, in an infinity of different ways. Such components, however, are >>> mere creations of the mind. What is the difference? As far as one >>> isolated event goes, there is none; the real forces are no more present >>> in the resultant than any components that the mathematician may imagine. >>> But what makes the real forces really there is the general law of nature >>> which calls for them, and not for any other components of the resultant. >>> Thus, intelligibility, or reason objectified, is what makes Thirdness >>> genuine. >>> >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
