Dear Folks--
I'm trying to think of some sort of non
psychologistic sounding way of describing or accounting for the drive to settle
doubt. I'm thinking that doubt represents uncertainty (a measure of
information) and uncertainty poses risk. In general,
dynamic sytems tend toward equilibriums around their mean values.
Perhaps the behavior we call inquiry is a form of this "moderation in
all things". The mean is the point in every distribution which
yields the least total error if taken as the value for every member of
the distribution. The mean is also the point of dynamic random
equilibrium. Maybe doubt is a form of dynamic disequilibrium and
inquiry a form of "regression to the mean". In a pluaralistic
universe -- truth is the mean or that which mediates between extremes. Not
the extremes that we imagine separate our truth from the falsehood of
others, but the extremes that actually exist each from another and of which our
point of view of truth is but one. Truth is what drives consensus and is
common to all POVs -- the lowly average.
The tenacious think feeling is
truth, the authoritarian will, the rationalist reason and the scientist
the 'average' of em all.
Mostly I'm trying to get a better handle on
some non psychologistic sounding ways of thinking about doubt, inquiry and
belief. Maybe I've just substituted one set of mis-used words for another
-- without any real progress in understanding. Curious what others might
think of these borrowed (and probably misapplied) ideas.
Jim Piat
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com |
- [peirce-l] Re: What Jeff Kasser
- [peirce-l] Re: What Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What jwillgoose
- [peirce-l] Re: What Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What jwillgoose
- [peirce-l] Re: What Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What Jeff Kasser
- [peirce-l] Re: What Jeff Kasser
- [peirce-l] Re: What Joseph Ransdell
- [peirce-l] Re: What Joseph Ransdell
- [peirce-l] Re: What Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What Joseph Ransdell