[PEIRCE-L] Second Call for Small Grant Proposals: God and Consciousness in Indian Traditions

[FRANCISCO MARIANO]

*Please circulate widely. Apologies for multiple emails.*





*SECOND CALL FOR SMALL GRANT PROPOSALS: PAPER INCUBATOR*





*Deadline*: January 5, 2024

*Website*: www.god-and-consciousness.com/grants



The project Concepts of God and the Variety of Theisms in Indian
Traditions: Towards a Theistic Theory of Consciousness
 is an initiative that has as
general goals (1) to philosophically reconstruct concepts of God in Indian
theistic (or theistically inclined) traditions, namely from Vaishnava,
Shaiva, Shakti, indigenous or other religious perspectives on the
subcontinent, and (2) to investigate the extent to which issues explored by
such traditions can contribute to the philosophy of consciousness. It is
supported by funding totaling $260,000 from the John Templeton Foundation

.



As part of the project, we will organize a paper incubator
: a systemized and sponsored
mentorship program designed to help junior and mid-career philosophers and
scholars of Indian studies to develop submitted papers proposals into
publishable articles. Each selected researcher will work in cooperation
with a tutor, who will help the candidate transform their text into a
high-quality publishable article. Each successful applicant will
receive a *grant
of 3,000 USD*. They will have 18 months to write their article, which must
be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Each researcher must present their
work in at least one of our three conferences
 (a bonus of *1,000
USD* will
be given to those who attend the conference in person). The grant will be
awarded through bank transfer, on which bank and federal revenue fees may
apply.



Proposals must be written in English in the form of an extended abstract of
a maximum of 2,000 words, clearly describing (1) the problem that will be
addressed, (2) the context in which the problem has been approached
(preferably through a brief literary review), (3) the goal of the paper,
and (4) the way the proponent wants to achieve this goal. The proposal
should also contain (5) a list with the relevant bibliography. The general
intended approach must be consistent with analytic philosophy of religion.
Proposals must address some of the questions and general goals
 of the project.
Applicants must be PhD candidates, or have completed their PhD within a
maximum of 6 years. We welcome proposals both from philosophers and Indian
Studies scholars. The proposal must be sent along with a summarized CV of
the applicant to god.and.consciousn...@gmail.com by January 5, 2024. The
list of selected proposals will be posted on the website on January 15,
2024.


Follow us on social media:

X (twitter): https://twitter.com/GodandConscious

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/God.and.Consciousnesss
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

[PEIRCE-L] LUW December 13 - Julio Stern - Dynamic Oppositional Symmetries for Color, Jungian and Kantian Categories

[jean-yves beziau]

The  next Logica Universalis Webinar session will be Wednesday December 13
at 4pm CET Paris-Geneva-Rome
>---
Speaker: Julio Michael  Stern, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Title:  "Dynamic Oppositional Symmetries for Color, Jungian and Kantian
Categories"
Abstract: This paper investigates some classical oppositional categories,
like synthetic vs. analytic, posterior vs. prior, imagination vs. grammar,
metaphor vs. hermeneutic, metaphysics vs. observation, innovation vs.
routine, and image vs. sound, and the role they play in epistemology and
philosophy of science. The epistemological framework of objective cognitive
constructivism is of special interest in these investigations. Oppositional
relations are formally represented using algebraic lattice structures
like the cube and the hexagon of opposition, with applications
in the contexts of modern color theory, Kantian philosophy, Jungian
psychology, and linguistics.
https://www.springer.com/journal/11787/
>-
Associated organization/project:
World Logic Day - 6th Edition
https://www.logica-universalis.org/wld6
presented by  Jean-Yves Beziau
>--
Chair: Ioannis Vandoulakis, Vice-President  LUA  (Logica Universalis
Association)
https://www.logica-universalis.org/LUAD
>
Everybody is welcome to join, register here:
https://cassyni.com/s/logica-universalis/seminars
Jean-Yves Beziau
Editor-in-Chief Logica Universalis / Organizer LUW
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

List:

JFS: Another term that raises confusion is "final interpretant".  I believe
that Peirce used that term for discussing important issues.  But the
details of multiple levels of interpretants are unclear.   I noticed that
in the last decade of his life, when Lady Welby was his primary
correspondent, he avoided that issue.  That does not imply that Peirce
thought that the word was irrelevant.  But it suggests that he did not
require that word for the most important issues he discussed with her,
William James, and other late correspondents.


For the record, Peirce did not at all avoid the issue of multiple
interpretants, including the final interpretant, in his late correspondence
with Lady Welby and William James. On the contrary, he introduces the whole
notion of three interpretants in one such letter
(immediate/dynamic/signified; CP 8.333-339, SS 32-35, 1904 Oct 12), briefly
mentions it again in another (explicit/effective/destinate; EP 2:481, SS
84, 1908 Dec 14), and elaborates on it extensively in several others
(immediate/dynamical/final; CP 8.184-185, EP 2:496, 1909 Feb 26; SS
109-111, 1909 Mar 14; CP 8.315, EP 2:499-500, 1909 Apr 1). For more on this
subject, please see my recent *Semiotica *paper, "Peirce's Evolving
Interpretants" (https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHPEI-12.pdf).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[robert marty]

Dear John, List

On your proposal to change the terminology for Categories :

 First, I agree with you about the drawbacks of the terminology currently
in use. However, it is so old and the alternative proposals so numerous
that it would be opening a Pandora's box. For example, I note the following
names, only in 1905, in the Logic Notebook
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$1i :

seq 454: Primity, Primality; Secundity, Secundality; (see also CP 1.533:
primity, secundity, tertianity)

seq 457: Tertiality, Primany Secundany Tertiany ;

seq 461: Monadont, Monadousy

seq 463: Dyadont, Dyadousy, Secundality (dated 1905, June 2)

seq 465: Triadont, Triadousy, Tertiality (dated 1905, July 52)

seq 511: Primanity, Secundanity, Tertianity (dated 1905, December 20)

seq 513: Dyadont, Secundanity (dated 1905, december 21)

In this LNB, Peirce anticipates a practice common today among researchers,
that of the "personal research journal," a record of everything they are
thinking about their research or what they think at the time of their
research.

Don't forget: Originality, Obsistence and Transuasion (CP 2.89)

Personally, in answer to your question, I think it would be very
interesting to retain Primanity, Secundanity, and Tertianity as category
names ("comprehensions" or "denotations"), because they would be perfectly
consistent with Priman, Secundan, and Tertian as the names of the elements
belonging respectively to each of these categories ("extensions"). This
would avoid Firsnesses, Secondnesses, and Thirdnesses, not to mention the
confusion caused by using ordinals First, Second, and Third, as pointed out
by Edwina and myself.

 This would lead to "Primanité , Secondité et Tertianité" in French and
"Primanidad, Secundidad et Tertianidad" in Spanish, with the advantage of
having in each of the three languages "Priman, Secundan, et Tertian" to
designate the elements.

I don't see how such a change could happen. For a long time, Firstness and
Primarity (or Primanity), Secondness and Secondarity (or Secundanity),
Thirdness and Tertiarity (or Tertianity) would have to be allowed to
coexist in the hope that the new terms would take hold. I can't imagine
that any authority would be set up today to standardize vocabulary.

 Robert
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le dim. 10 déc. 2023 à 00:47, John F Sowa  a écrit :

> Dear Robert, Edwina, and all readers of Peirce-List,
>
> I share the concerns of Robert, Edwina, and a large number of subscribers
> who rarely comment on this list.  We have discussed these and related
> issues before.  In the early 2000s, this list was a vital source of
> discussion by some of the best and most respected Peirce scholars.  But
> most of them have dropped out.  Some still subscribe, but they don't join
> the discussions because they find their ideas rejected or distorted by
> people who "shoot first" and ask questions later.
>
> There is one point I find significant, and I wish that I could discuss it
> with people who would consider it seriously.   In the Logic Notebook (LNB
> 268r, 1905), Peirce mentions the following four points, which he intended
> to develop in detail:
>
>1. The phaneron and the logical composition of concepts in general.
>Here take up Kant & Leibniz & a general sketch of Existential Graphs.
>
>2. The forms of elementary ideas and indecomposable elements thereof
>that are *a priori *possible.
>
>3. The forms we actually find.
>
>4. The principal kinds of Primarity, Secundarity, and Tertiarity.
>
> Point 4 is significant.  It seems that Peirce was considering three new
> terms that might replace Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness.  Was that
> what he intended?  Or did he plan to have a new kind of triad or
> trichotomy?  I have been searching for some discussion of these questions,
> but I can't find anything anywhere.
>
> I believe that those three words would be an excellent replacement for
> 1-ness, 2-ness,  and 3-ness.  Most people who never read much or any of
> Peirce's writings find the 3 "nesses" to be hopelessly confusing.  I was
> recently reading an article by Jaime Nubiola, in which he said that his
> initial response to them was a total rejection, but he later realized that
> the concepts were absolutely fundamental.  I strongly agree.
>
> Since my primary audience is 21st C readers who are not Peirce scholars, I
> don't want my readers to stop reading at the point where I mention the
> three "Nesses".  I would very much prefer to write Primarity, Secundarity,
> and Tertiarity to Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness.
>
> Since 1905 was a year when Lady Welby and William James were his primary
> correspondents, and neither of them would ever use those words, I suspect
> that Peirce was searching for a more acceptable terminology for his most
> respected colleagues and other reade