Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Hyperbolic Cosmology (was The Pragmatic Trivium)

[Auke van Breemen]

Jon Alen,

You are a nasty kind of guy, trying to expose yourself by reading all kind of 
opinion to be corrected in others messages.

Disgusting rethorical tactics. As disgusting as the neighbour cat that allways 
is pissing against the same doorpost.

Auke


> Op 27 juni 2020 om 2:12 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt :
> 
> Auke, Edwina, List:
> 
> Just to clarify, according to Peirce neither the absolutely indeterminate 
> "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is 
> actual.  Instead, these are ideal limits that correspond to the infinite past 
> and the infinite future, respectively.  In the meantime, all three categories 
> are always operative.
> 
> 
> > > CSP:  We look back toward a point in the infinitely 
> distant past when there was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to 
> a point in the infinitely distant future when there will be no indeterminacy 
> or chance but a complete reign of law. But at any assignable date in the 
> past, however early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and 
> at any assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from 
> law. (CP 1.409, EP 1:277, 1887-8)
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > CSP:  The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, 
> tohu bohu, the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of 
> regularity. The state of things in the infinite future is death, the 
> nothingness of which consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of 
> all spontaneity. Between these, we have on our side a state of things in 
> which there is some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree 
> of conformity to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth 
> of habit. (CP 8.317, 1891)
> > 
> > > 
> In other words, the ongoing evolution (3ns) of our existing universe is 
> such that it is always becoming more determinate in accordance with Gary 
> Richmond's vector 
> https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm of 
> process (1ns→3ns→2ns).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran 
> Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
> 
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca 
> mailto:tabor...@primus.ca > wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we 
> > can call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the 
> > second stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop 
> > habits of organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of Secondness to 
> > actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to reproduce as types 
> > [whether as chemical molecules or as cells].
> > 
> > Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot 
> > be a final state of pure habits.
> > 
> > Edwina
> > 
> > On Fri 26/06/20 2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 
> > mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > Edwina,
> > > 
> > > With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the 
> > > opinion that we can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its true 
> > > nature.  
> > > 
> > > I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with 
> > > certain religious expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of 
> > > god.   What I did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:
> > > 
> > > We exist in time, which is the second stage of cosmological 
> > > evolution, that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and 
> > > diversity (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws and 
> > > habits develop and become more and more regular. What was originally 
> > > spontaneity becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to arise, 
> > > increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101). 
> > > 
> > > It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach. 
> > > 
> > > best,
> > > 
> > > Auke
> > > 
> > > Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > Auke, list
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about 
> > > > the artistic process.
> > > > 
> > > > My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and 
> > > > of course reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with 
> > > > the anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce 
> > > > also uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term 
> > > > overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency, 
> > > > predetermined goals, interventionism, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > But my other quibble is her

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Hyperbolic Cosmology (was The Pragmatic Trivium)

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary - I'm puzzled. Who suggested that the three categories are not
always operative - in the meantime? I don't see that either Auke or
myself made such a suggestion. 

What I was referring to, was Peirce's cosmological outline [6.207-] 
and Peirce says nothing about 'ideal limits'. Instead - his outline
refers, not to the 'ideal' but to the emergence of the categories and
matter/mind from 'Nothing'. 

Edwina
 On Fri 26/06/20  8:49 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Jon, Auke, Edwina,
 Jon wrote: . . . according to Peirce neither the absolutely
indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate
"final stage" (2ns) is actual.  Instead, these are  ideal limits that
correspond to the infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.
 In the meantime, all three categories are always operative.
 I have sometime wondered, considering all the "interpretations" of
Peirce's thought that, if anything he thought and wrote might be
agreed upon by all Peirceans that it would be this: that until the
end of that time which might have any meaning for our human race --
or for that matter, any sentient race which might consider such
matters -- that "all three categories are always operative." 
 Thanks for putting it so starkly, Jon.
 Best,
 Gary
 "TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
 Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
 On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
 Auke, Edwina, List:
 Just to clarify, according to Peirce neither the absolutely
indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate
"final stage" (2ns) is  actual.  Instead, these are ideal limits that
correspond to the infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.
 In the meantime, all three categories are always operative.
 CSP:  We look back toward a point in the infinitely distant past
when there was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to a
point in the infinitely distant future when there will be no
indeterminacy or chance but a complete reign of law. But at any
assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some
tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future
there will be some slight aberrancy from law. (CP 1.409, EP 1:277,
1887-8) 
 CSP:  The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu,
the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity.
The state of things in the infinite future is death, the nothingness
of which consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of all
spontaneity. Between these, we have on our side a state of things in
which there is some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some
degree of conformity to law, which is constantly on the increase owing
to the growth of  habit. (CP 8.317, 1891)
 In other words, the ongoing evolution (3ns) of our existing universe
is such that it is always becoming more determinate in accordance with
Gary Richmond's vector [2] of process (1ns→3ns→2ns).
 Regards,
 Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
 On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[5]> wrote:
Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we
can call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the
second stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop
habits of organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of
Secondness to actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to
reproduce as types [whether as chemical molecules or as cells]. 

Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be
a final state of pure habits.  

Edwina
 On Fri 26/06/20  2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
[6] sent:
Edwina,

With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the
opinion that we can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its
true nature.  

I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain
religious expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.  
What I did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:

We exist in time, which is the second stage of cosmological
evolution, that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws)
and diversity (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves,
laws and habits develop and become more and more regular. What was
originally spontaneity becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to
arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101).


It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach. 

best,

Auke

Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky : 
Auke, list

Thanks for the 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Hyperbolic Cosmology (was The Pragmatic Trivium)

[Gary Richmond]

Jon, Auke, Edwina,

Jon wrote: . . . according to Peirce neither the absolutely indeterminate
"initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is
*actual*.  Instead, these are *ideal* limits that correspond to the
infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.  In the meantime, all
three categories are always operative.

I have sometime wondered, considering all the "interpretations" of Peirce's
thought that, if anything he thought and wrote might be agreed upon by all
Peirceans that it would be this: that until the end of that time which
might have any meaning for our human race -- or for that matter, any
sentient race which might consider such matters -- that "all three
categories are always operative."

Thanks for putting it so starkly, Jon.

Best,

Gary



"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Auke, Edwina, List:
>
> Just to clarify, according to Peirce neither the absolutely indeterminate
> "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is
> *actual*.  Instead, these are *ideal* limits that correspond to the
> infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.  In the meantime, all
> three categories are always operative.
>
> CSP:  We look back toward a point in the infinitely distant past when
> there was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to a point in the
> infinitely distant future when there will be no indeterminacy or chance but
> a complete reign of law. But at any assignable date in the past, however
> early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and at any
> assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law.
> (CP 1.409, EP 1:277, 1887-8)
>
> CSP:  The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the
> nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state
> of things in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which
> consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity.
> Between these, we have on *our *side a state of things in which there is
> some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity
> to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of *habit*.
> (CP 8.317, 1891)
>
>
> In other words, the ongoing evolution (3ns) of our existing universe is
> such that it is always becoming *more* determinate in accordance with
> Gary Richmond's vector
> 
> of process (1ns→3ns→2ns).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we can
>> call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the second
>> stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop habits of
>> organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of Secondness to actually
>> exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to reproduce as types [whether as
>> chemical molecules or as cells].
>>
>> Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be a
>> final state of pure habits.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> On Fri 26/06/20 2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
>>
>> Edwina,
>>
>> With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the opinion
>> that we can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its true nature.
>>
>> I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain
>> religious expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.   What I
>> did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:
>>
>> We exist in time, which is the second stage of cosmological evolution,
>> that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and diversity
>> (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws and habits
>> develop and become more and more regular. What was originally spontaneity
>> becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to arise, increasing the
>> variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101).
>>
>> It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Auke
>>
>> Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
>>
>> Auke, list
>>
>> Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
>> process.
>>
>> My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course reflects
>> my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the anthropomorphic
>> transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also uses to refer to
>> 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term overloaded with
>> anthropomorphic meanings, including agency, predetermined goals,
>> interventioni

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Hyperbolic Cosmology (was The Pragmatic Trivium)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Auke, Edwina, List:

Just to clarify, according to Peirce neither the absolutely indeterminate
"initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is
*actual*.  Instead, these are *ideal* limits that correspond to the
infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.  In the meantime, all
three categories are always operative.

CSP:  We look back toward a point in the infinitely distant past when there
was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to a point in the
infinitely distant future when there will be no indeterminacy or chance but
a complete reign of law. But at any assignable date in the past, however
early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and at any
assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law.
(CP 1.409, EP 1:277, 1887-8)

CSP:  The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the
nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state
of things in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which
consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity.
Between these, we have on *our *side a state of things in which there is
some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity
to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of *habit*.
(CP 8.317, 1891)


In other words, the ongoing evolution (3ns) of our existing universe is
such that it is always becoming *more* determinate in accordance with Gary
Richmond's vector

of process (1ns→3ns→2ns).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we can
> call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the second
> stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop habits of
> organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of Secondness to actually
> exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to reproduce as types [whether as
> chemical molecules or as cells].
>
> Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be a
> final state of pure habits.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Fri 26/06/20 2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
>
> Edwina,
>
> With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the opinion that
> we can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its true nature.
>
> I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain
> religious expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.   What I
> did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:
>
> We exist in time, which is the second stage of cosmological evolution,
> that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and diversity
> (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws and habits
> develop and become more and more regular. What was originally spontaneity
> becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to arise, increasing the
> variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101).
>
> It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach.
>
> best,
>
> Auke
>
> Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
>
> Auke, list
>
> Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
> process.
>
> My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course reflects
> my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the anthropomorphic
> transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also uses to refer to
> 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term overloaded with
> anthropomorphic meanings, including agency, predetermined goals,
> interventionism, etc.
>
> But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one of
> Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within individual
> particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite entities, will always
> be undergoing dissipation [unless time also stops] . My understanding of
> the final stage is instead, 'the complete induration of habit reducing the
> free play of feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to complete
> death'. 6.201. This refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148,
> "habits would become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for
> the formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy
> close" But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a certain
> amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would be dead" 6.148.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
>
> John,
>
> A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
> http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
>
> A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks on
> Peirce's conception of God.
>
> In 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Sign Relations

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Sign Relations ??? Discussion 7
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/26/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-7/

Re: Sign Relations ??? Definition
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/01/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-definition/
Re: Ontolog Forum
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/cpgB6B6UjRs/overview
Re: Alex Shkotin
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ontolog-forum/cpgB6B6UjRs/1pPLJheLAQAJ

Dear Alex,

Please forgive the long and winding dissertation.  I've been through many discussions of Peirce's definition of ???logic 
as formal semiotic??? but I keep discovering new ways of reading what I once thought a fairly straightforward proposition. 
 That's all useful information but it makes me anxious to avoid all the missteps of exposition I may have made in the 
past.  At any rate, I think I've set enough background and context ??? it will take more, but later ??? to begin addressing 
your comments now.


For ease of reference here is Peirce's twofold definition again.



Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic.  A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to human 
thought than does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time. 
 Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the 
same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.  It is from this 
definition, together with a definition of ???formal???, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.  I also make a 
historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no 
novelty, but that my non-psychological conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally 
recognized.  (C.S. Peirce, NEM 4, 20???21).




Turning to your first comment ???

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/13/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-3/



A Sign is unusually active in Peirce's definition:

A (a sign) brings B (interpretant sign) into correspondence with C (object of 
sign).

Moreover, A determines B or even creates B.

It would be nice to get an example of such an active sign, its interpretant sign, and an object.  My point is to make 
the Peirce definition as clear as to be formalized.




Several issues stand out.  There are questions about paraphrases,
the active character of signs, and the nature of what is being defined.

??? The problem of paraphrases arises at this point because it affects
  how literally we ought to take the words in a natural language proxy
  for a logical or mathematical formula.

For example, a conventional idiom in describing a mathematical function f : X ??? Y is to say f ???maps??? or ???sends??? an 
element of X to an element of Y.  A concrete verb may quicken the intuition but the downside is its power to evoke 
excess meanings beyond the abstract intention.  It is only as we become more familiar with the formal subject matter of 
sign relations that we can decide what kind of ???bringing??? and ???creating??? and ???determining??? is really going on in all 
that sign, object, interpretant relating, whether at the abstract level or in a given application.


??? There is the question of a sign's active character.
  Where's the dynamic function in all this static structure?
  Klaus Krippendorff raised the same question in regard to the
  Parable of the Sunflower back at the beginning of this discussion.

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/28/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-1/



[Peirce's] triadic explanations do not cover the dynamics of the sunflower???s behavior.  It favors static descriptions 
which cybernetics is fundamentally opposed to, moreover including the cybernetician as enactor of his or her conceptual 
system.




I have not forgotten this question.  Indeed, it's the
question at the heart of my work on Inquiry Driven Systems

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/26/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-%e2%80%a2-2/

which led me back to grad school in Systems Engineering
???to develop mutual applications of systems theory and
artificial intelligence to each other???.

https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems

Anything approaching an adequate answer to that question is going to be one of those things requiring more background 
and context, all in good time, but there are a few hints we can take from Peirce's text about the way forward.




A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to
human thought than does the definition of a line as the place
which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.



My reading of that tells me about a division of
labor across three levels of abstraction.  There is
a level of psychological experience and social activity,
a level of dynamic process and temporal pattern, and
a level of mathematical form.

To be continued ???

Regards,

Jon

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we
can call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the
second stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop
habits of organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of
Secondness to actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to
reproduce as types [whether as chemical molecules or as cells]. 

Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be
a final state of pure habits. 

Edwina
 On Fri 26/06/20  2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
sent:
Edwina,

With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the
opinion that we can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its
true nature.  

I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain
religious expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.  
What I did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:

We exist in time, which is thesecond stageof cosmological evolution,
that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and
diversity (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws
and habits develop and become more and more regular. What was
originally spontaneity becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to
arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101).


It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach. 
best,

Auke
Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky : 
Auke, list

Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
process.

My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course
reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the
anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also
uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term
overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency,
predetermined goals, interventionism, etc. 

But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one
of Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within
individual particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite
entities, will always be undergoing dissipation [unless time also
stops] . My understanding of the final stage is instead, 'the
complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and
the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 6.201. This
refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would
become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the
formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy
close" But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a
certain amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would
be dead" 6.148. 

Edwina
  On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
sent:
John,

A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp [1]

A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks
on Peirce's conception of God. 

In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less
feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:

1. The quality of the artwork in itself

2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings

3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant
thought.
and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case
study. 
best,

Auke
 Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" : 
Iris and Jerry R,

The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving ethics
from esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and
logic to such a great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would
seem trivial by comparison, at least to himself.   But before
claiming that Peirce was incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we
should compare his writings to someone who was more competent.  Who
might that be? 

Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was
incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the
esthetically good?" In some ways, I think he might be right: it's
easier to ask questions about the pragmatic trivium as it relates to
today's world than to find satisfying answers in Peirce's writings.

Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest philosophers of
all time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone found answers
about the normative sciences that are more satisfying than Peirce's? 
Who? 

CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative sciences,
of
  which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by Esthetics
and Ethics. It is
  now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound Schiller's
Aesthetische
  Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every afternoon
for long

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Auke van Breemen]

Edwina,

With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the opinion that we 
can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its true nature.  

I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain religious 
expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.   What I did value in 
Peirce's estimate is this fragment:

We exist in time, which is thesecond stageof cosmological evolution, that 
ofthirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and diversity (spontaneity 
and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws and habits develop and become more 
and more regular. What was originally spontaneity becomes law. But new 
spontaneities continue to arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 
1931-1935, 6.101). 

It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach. 


best,

Auke


Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :



> 
> Auke, list
> 
> Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic 
> process.
> 
> My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course reflects 
> my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the anthropomorphic 
> transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also uses to refer to 'god' 
> ] to the term of 'God', which is a term overloaded with anthropomorphic 
> meanings, including agency, predetermined goals, interventionism, etc.
> 
> But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one of 
> Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within individual 
> particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite entities, will always be 
> undergoing dissipation [unless time also stops] . My understanding of the 
> final stage is instead, 'the complete induration of habit reducing the free 
> play of feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 
> 6.201. This refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would 
> become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the formation of 
> new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy close" But - Peirce 
> reminds us that 'There always remains a certain amount of spontaneity in its 
> action, without which it would be dead" 6.148.
> 
> Edwina
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
> 
> > > 
> > John,
> > 
> > A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at: 
> > http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
> > 
> > A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine 
> > remarks on Peirce's conception of God.
> > 
> > In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less 
> > feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:
> > 
> > 1. The quality of the artwork in itself
> > 
> > 2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings
> > 
> > 3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant 
> > thought.
> > 
> > 
> > and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case 
> > study.
> > 
> > 
> > best,
> > 
> > Auke
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Iris and Jerry R,
> > > 
> > > The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving 
> > > ethics from esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and 
> > > logic to such a great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would seem 
> > > trivial by comparison, at least to himself.   But before claiming that 
> > > Peirce was incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we should compare his 
> > > writings to someone who was more competent.  Who might that be?
> > > 
> > > Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was 
> > > incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically 
> > > good?" In some ways, I think he might be right: it's easier to ask 
> > > questions about the pragmatic trivium as it relates to today's world than 
> > > to find satisfying answers in Peirce's writings.
> > > 
> > > Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest 
> > > philosophers of all time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone 
> > > found answers about the normative sciences that are more satisfying than 
> > > Peirce's?  Who?
> > > 
> > > CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative 
> > > sciences, of
> > > which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by 
> > > Esthetics and Ethics. It is
> > > now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound 
> > > Schiller's Aesthetische
> > > Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every 
> > > afternoon for long
> > > months upon it, picking the matter to pieces as well as we 
> > > boys knew how to do.
> > > In those days, I read various works on esthetics; but on the 
> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charles S. Peirce. Selected Writings on Semiotics, 1894–1912

[Paul Cobley]

Dear Jon and all,

Thanks for this.

Sorry about the pricings.

I can never work out the publishers’ logic with this.


Thanks for R 787 & RS 787(s) and R 812:9-10, too.



Best,



Paul


From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
Reply-To: Jon Alan Schmidt 
Date: Friday, 26 June 2020 at 15:12
To: "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charles S. Peirce. Selected Writings on Semiotics, 
1894–1912

Paul, List:

This is excellent news, thanks for bringing it to our attention.  With this 
publication, Ahti-Veikko Pietarienen's 
three-volume
 Logic of the Future:  Writings on Existential Graphs, and the "Peirceana" 
series
 that will include additional "untranslated English selections of Peirce’s 
writings," De Gruyter is stepping up to fill the void left by the stalling of 
the Peirce Edition Project's Chronological Edition at 1892.  My only complaint 
is that they are all quite expensive ($115 minimum), with no discount for 
purchasing the PDF rather than the hardcover except the lack of a shipping 
charge.

I notice that Selected Writings on Semiotics includes "That Categorical and 
Hypothetical Propositions are one in essence, with some connected matters" (R 
787, 1896), and that Bellucci found the two additional missing pages (8-9) at 
the end of R 812.  They briefly discuss the relationship between mathematics 
and logic, and my own updated (now complete) transcription is attached.  Other 
noteworthy contents are "Reason's Rules" (R 599, 1902) as recently quoted by 
Gary Fuhrman, certain Logic Notebook entries (R 339, 1904-1906), previously 
unpublished portions of "The Fourth Curiosity" (R 200, 1907), "Significs and 
Logic" (R 641-642, 1909), and "The Rationale of Reasoning" (R 644&647, 1910).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
 - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:46 AM Paul Cobley 
mailto:p.cob...@mdx.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

Apologies for advertising, but I think that list members will be interested in 
this volume, below, which will become available very soon.

(I’m enjoying the discussion of the Pragmatic Trivium, incidentally).

Best,

Paul

Charles S. Peirce. Selected Writings on Semiotics, 1894–1912

ed. Francesco Bellucci

https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/539483?tab_body=overview

The volume is a specialized selection of unpublished writings spanning almost 
twenty years (1894–1913) that are essential to understand Peirce’s views about 
signs, their classification, and the relations between semiotics and logical 
inquiry. It comprises twenty-two selections, a historico-critical introduction, 
and an apparatus of editorial annotations. The selections are prepared 
following the methods of scholarly editing of philosophical texts.
The book will be of interest to graduate students and researchers working in 
areas such as Peirce studies, the history of American philosophy and 
pragmatism, logic and history of logic, the history of analytic philosophy, 
philosophy of language, semiotics, and language sciences.
· 22 selections of previously unpublished writings of Peirce on the 
theory of signs
· a storico-critical editorial introduction that places the selections 
in the context of the development of the author's thought
Contents can be viewed here: 
https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/539483?tab_body=toc-75135

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Auke, list

Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
process. 

My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course
reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the
anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also
uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term
overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency,
predetermined goals, interventionism, etc. 

But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one
of Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within
individual particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite
entities, will always be undergoing dissipation [unless time also
stops] . My understanding of the final stage is instead, 'the
complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and
the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 6.201. This
refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would
become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the
formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy
close" But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a
certain amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would
be dead" 6.148. 

Edwina
 On Fri 26/06/20  7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
sent:
John,

A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp [1]

A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks
on Peirce's conception of God.

In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less
feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:

1. The quality of the artwork in itself 

2. the way in which (or adequacy) it  expresses qualities of
feelings

3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant
thought.
and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case
study.
best,

Auke
 Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" : 
Iris and Jerry R,

The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving ethics
from esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and
logic to such a great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would
seem trivial by comparison, at least to himself.   But before
claiming that Peirce was incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we
should compare his writings to someone who was more competent.  Who
might that be? 

Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was
incompetent for the task imposed upon him of defining the
esthetically good?" In some ways, I think he might be right: it's
easier to ask questions about the pragmatic trivium as it relates to
today's world than to find satisfying answers in Peirce's writings.

Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest philosophers of
all time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone found answers
about the normative sciences that are more satisfying than Peirce's? 
Who? 

CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative sciences,
of
 which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by Esthetics
and Ethics. It is
 now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound Schiller's
Aesthetische
 Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every afternoon
for long
 months upon it, picking the matter to pieces as well as we boys knew
how to do.
 In those days, I read various works on esthetics; but on the whole,
I must confess
 that, like most logicians, I have pondered that subject far too
little. The books do
 seem so feeble.

CP has 129 passages about esthetics.  He said that he read various
works on the subject, but he found those books "so feeble". 

Can anyone point to books that are not "feeble" according to the
standards that Peirce set for himself?

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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
 ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu with no subject, and with the sole line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] . 
 ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.   


Links:
--
[1] http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
[2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-

[PEIRCE-L] Charles S. Peirce. Selected Writings on Semiotics, 1894–1912

[Paul Cobley]

Dear colleagues,

Apologies for advertising, but I think that list members will be interested in 
this volume, below, which will become available very soon.

(I’m enjoying the discussion of the Pragmatic Trivium, incidentally).

Best,

Paul

Charles S. Peirce. Selected Writings on Semiotics, 1894–1912

ed. Francesco Bellucci

https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/539483?tab_body=overview


The volume is a specialized selection of unpublished writings spanning almost 
twenty years (1894–1913) that are essential to understand Peirce’s views about 
signs, their classification, and the relations between semiotics and logical 
inquiry. It comprises twenty-two selections, a historico-critical introduction, 
and an apparatus of editorial annotations. The selections are prepared 
following the methods of scholarly editing of philosophical texts.
The book will be of interest to graduate students and researchers working in 
areas such as Peirce studies, the history of American philosophy and 
pragmatism, logic and history of logic, the history of analytic philosophy, 
philosophy of language, semiotics, and language sciences.

· 22 selections of previously unpublished writings of Peirce on the 
theory of signs
· a storico-critical editorial introduction that places the selections 
in the context of the development of the author's thought
Contents can be viewed here: 
https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/539483?tab_body=toc-75135

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Pragmatic Trivium

[Auke van Breemen]

John,

A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at: 
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp

A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks on 
Peirce's conception of God.

In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less feeble only 
if three aspects are explicated in the study:

1. The quality of the artwork in itself

2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings

3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant thought.


and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case study.


best,

Auke




> Op 25 juni 2020 om 19:20 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
> 
> 
> Iris and Jerry R,
> 
> The question of what Peirce knew or thought about deriving ethics from 
> esthetics is problematical. He analyzed issues of science and logic to such a 
> great depth, that his knowledge of esthetics would seem trivial by 
> comparison, at least to himself.   But before claiming that Peirce was 
> incompetent about esthetics or ethics, we should compare his writings to 
> someone who was more competent.  Who might that be?
> 
> Iris> Jerry Rhee asks, "Is it not obvious that Peirce was incompetent for 
> the task imposed upon him of defining the esthetically good?" In some ways, I 
> think he might be right: it's easier to ask questions about the pragmatic 
> trivium as it relates to today's world than to find satisfying answers in 
> Peirce's writings.
> 
> Yes.  Questions are very important.  The greatest philosophers of all 
> time have been asking such questions.  Has anyone found answers about the 
> normative sciences that are more satisfying than Peirce's?  Who?
> 
> CP 2.197> We shall next take up the logic of the normative sciences, of
> which logic itself is only the third, being preceded by Esthetics and 
> Ethics. It is
> now forty-seven years ago that I undertook to expound Schiller's 
> Aesthetische
> Briefe to my dear friend, Horatio Paine. We spent every afternoon for long
> months upon it, picking the matter to pieces as well as we boys knew how 
> to do.
> In those days, I read various works on esthetics; but on the whole, I 
> must confess
> that, like most logicians, I have pondered that subject far too little. 
> The books do
> seem so feeble.
> 
> CP has 129 passages about esthetics.  He said that he read various works 
> on the subject, but he found those books "so feeble". 
> 
> Can anyone point to books that are not "feeble" according to the 
> standards that Peirce set for himself?
> 
> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> .
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to 
> l...@list.iupui.edu with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe 
> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
> 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.