And here is the little commentary I did on the Stanley Fish piece Steven
mentions;

Fallibilism applies to both scientists and religionists
Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One? -
NYTimes.com<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/citing-chapter-and-verse-which-scripture-is-the-right-one/?hp>
:
'via Blog 
this'<https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk>
When a link to a Stanley Fish column appears on the NYT home page
You take notice
Fish could have said this all a bit more economically
if he had evoked Charles Sanders Peirce
Pinker and Dawkins are exactly as Fish says
or as I say in four words -
half of a binary
Acknowledgement of fallibility all around
opens up the way to thinking in threes
*Charles Sanders Peirce - Thinking in
Threes<http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/2012/01/charles-sanders-peirce-collection-of.html>
*
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/>



On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us>wrote:

> Dear Cathy,
>
> "Non-Peirceans," if you will forgive the over simplification, are in two
> camps:
>
>        1. the religious dualist,
>        2. the scientific dualist.
>
> Often they are in both.
>
> One does not know how to ground what Peirce calls "Thirdness" (more
> generally, "the mind") in their conception of "God," the other does not
> know how to ground Thirdness in their conception of Physics.
> In-other-words, there are two dogmas working against the Peircean.
>
> It produces precisely the problem that Stanley Fish alludes to, and that I
> respond to (see my comment at the bottom of the page), here:
>
>        Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/citing-chapter-and-verse-which-scripture-is-the-right-one/?comments#permid=72
>
> This is a reference to an article that Stephen Rose gave a few days ago.
>
> Peirce's objection to the "Russelization" of logic is relevant here,
> because the eradication of "psychologism" placed "the mind" (esp.
> "Thirdness") beyond the reach of 20th Century science and logic.
>
> It has become clear to me that Charles Peirce, and his father Benjamin,
> did indeed conceive of the mind, and in particular what Charles called
> "Thirdness," as grounded in both a conception of "God" and a conception of
> Physics. Now I rush to add that, despite the language of the time, this
> "God" conception is not the usual one but one that is really "non-theistic"
> in the modern sense, in that it is without personification and clearly not
> the god of popular western conception.
>
> This, in my view, is the proper way to interpret the apparent
> contradiction in this matter when it is naively read into Benjamin Peirce's
> "Ideality in the physical sciences" and in the writings of Charles Peirce.
> Their view is more like that of Taoism than Judeao-Christianity (although
> it maintains the passion of the later).
>
> So, in presenting Peirce's view in relation to contemporary arguments it
> is important, I think, to highlight these points and challenge the dogma.
> If you do, then Peircean concerns and questions may become more clear to
> the audience unfamiliar with them.
>
> With respect,
> Steven
>
>
> --
>        Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
>        Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
>        http://iase.info
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 2:08 AM, Catherine Legg wrote:
>
> > Gary R wrote:
> > *
> >>> For my own part, I tend--as perhaps Jon does as well--to see
> > esthetic/ethics/logic as semeiotic as being in genuine tricategorial
> > relation so that they *inform* each other in interesting ways.
> Trichotomic
> > vector theory, then, does not demand that one necessarily always follow
> > the order: 1ns (esthetic), then 2ns (ethics), then 3ns (logic). One may
> > also look at the three involutionally (logic involves ethics which, in
> > turn, involves esthetic) or, even, according to the vector of
> > representation (logic shows esthetic to be in that particular relation to
> > ethics which Peirce holds them to be in). But only a very few scholars
> > have taken up tricategorial vector relations. Indeed, R. J. Parmentier
> and
> > I are the only folk I know of who have published work on possible paths
> of
> > movement (vectors) through a genuine trichotomic relation which does
> *not*
> > follow the Hegelian order: 1ns then 2ns then 3ns.
> >
> > This is very interesting, thanks Gary :-)
> >
> >>> Indeed, with a  few exceptions, there appears at present to be
> > relatively little interest in Peirce's categories generally speaking.
> > Given the way they pervade his scientific and philosophical work, and
> > considering how highly he valued their discovery, this has always struck
> > me as quite odd.
> > *
> >
> > I have found that presenting on these concepts to non-Peirceans in
> > seminars and conference papers can be very hard work. It doesn't make
> much
> > sense to people who aren't already thinking within Peirce's system.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body
> of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to
> PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
> listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body
> of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to
> PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Reply via email to