Gary, Joe, Kirsti, list,
> Personally i think the contradiction is more apparent than flat. As i
> said (and i think Kirsti said the same), this is not circulum vitiosum
> but a pattern which underlies inquiry and therefore can only be itself
> investigated via a cyclical process.
I have to agree. The more I read of Peirce, the more I see loops of reasoning -
loops, networks, call it what you will. In fact it only seems to jive with his
thinking, especially showing itself when he gets knee-deep in relative logic.
The circle has less to do with circular reasoning than with being able to
define even the simplest conceptions via the logic of relations (5.207).
A bit like the hermeneutic circle of Heidegger - the structure of meaning, and
of Dasein itself, looping back on itself and forming a system (H. 153 of Being
and Time). So far as I know, Heidegger never read Peirce, but they seem to be
touching on the same thing.
Circles in reasoning must be demonstrated to be truly vicious; I'm not
convinced that this one is.
best,
jacob
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:35:29 -0400
Von: "gnusystems" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Betreff: [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamenal psychological laws" is Peirce
referring to?
> Joe, Kirsti, list,
>
> [[ Well, Gary, it looks like some fancy footwork with the term "is
> rooted in" might have to be resorted to if we are to save Peirce on this
> one! You've caught him with a flat contradiction there! ]]
>
> Personally i think the contradiction is more apparent than flat. As i
> said (and i think Kirsti said the same), this is not circulum vitiosum
> but a pattern which underlies inquiry and therefore can only be itself
> investigated via a cyclical process.
>
> The "social principle" is implicit in explicit (formal) logic, *and*
> logic/semeiotic is implicit in the "social principle". (Though Peirce
> would not have put it that way in 1869 or 1878.) "The social
> principle is intrinsically rooted in logic" (1869) because recognition
> of others as experiencing beings is a special case of seeing a
> difference between phenomenon and reality, or between sign and object --
> or between "soul" and "world", to use the terms Peirce uses in both of
> these passages. Logic begins with the revelation of a real world out
> there beyond phenomenal consciousness. "Logic is rooted in the social
> principle" (1878) in that it explicates the relationship between
> experience and reality, which it cannot do prior to the developmental
> stage at which the difference between the two is recognized -- a stage
> accessible only to *social* animals who can handle symbolic signs. (The
> "method of tenacity" is, in a sense, a reversion to an earlier stage of
> development even though it is also a social stance.)
>
> So i don't think Peirce needs to be saved; or if he does, it's only
> because (like a bodhisattva) he has "sacrificed his own soul to save the
> whole world."
>
> gary F.
>
> }To seek Buddhahood apart from living beings is like seeking echoes by
> silencing sounds. [Layman Hsiang]{
>
> gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
> }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/gnoxic.htm }{
>
>
> ---
> Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f¨r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
