"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
Gary R, list
Thanks for the quote. I've two, hopefully brief, comments.
1] I don't think that a 'thing' is real in itself, It is existential, but its attributes, its modal nature, can be real - if that modal nature includes Thirdness, which is to say, includes generals or habits.
2] Thirdness, or generality or habits, has to be understood as distinct - spatially and temporally - from the modal categories of Firstness and Secondness.
Firstness operates in the Open Here and Now - ...this undifferentiated 'instant'..and 'this space'..with no sense of past or future time and no sense of 'other space. It is that immediate sensation.
Secondness operates in the Distinct Here and Now - this 'instant' as differentiated from the past or next instant and this space as differentiated from Other Space. It is that distinct, closed oppositional awareness of self-not self.
Thirdness operates in Past/Future or Progressive Time and non-local space. That is, its properties, as generals, have no 'glue' confining them to 'hic et nunc' time; they are spread out; they are the same in the past and in the future; they are continuity. And - they are common to a lot of 'instances' over space. As such, these Generals are of course, real general possibilities.
3] BUT Thirdness or 'the real' , being composed of generals operating only in past/future time and non-local space, can only exist, within the temporal and spatial finiteness, the 'nowness' of matter operating in the mode of Firstness and/or Secondness. These two modal categories provide the 'hic and nunc' existentiality to Thirdness.
Therefore - a General or an open general possibility, is 'real' but, being without current time and space, it remains an abstract open, vague continuous force. As a force, does Thirdness depend on being articulated within existential Firstness/Secondness? I think it does; its properties are general and open to change within the 'being made existential' - but - I don't see that Thirdness/ generals can continue-to-be-Real without that semiosic connection. That is, I don't see Thirdness/generals as functioning separated from Firstness/Secondness.
Edwina
On Mon 16/10/17 5:12 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina, list,I'm glad the quotation proved helpful to you. There does remain the question of the generality and reality of habits and habit formation towards the future, evolutionary tendencies, 'would-bes', etc.Since I've decided to rest my eyes for the rest of the day (I may in fact listen to that Mozart concerto), I'll just offer another quote and a brief comment to suggest what I have in mind for perhaps future discussion (I'd recommend that if we do take the discussion further that we do so in a separate thread).1911 | A Sketch of Logical Critics | EP 2:457-458 (in Commens Dictionary)For what is it for a thing to be Real? [—] To say that a thing is Real is merely to say that such predicates as are true of it, or some of them, are true of it regardless of whatever any actual person or persons might think concerning that truth. Unconditionality in that single respect constitutes what we call Reality. Consequently, any habit, or lasting state that consists in the fact that the subject of it would, under certain conditions, behave in a certain way, is Real, provided this be true whether actual persons think so or not; and it must be admitted to be a Real Habit, even if those conditions never actually do get fulfilled.
I would assume that we are in agreement as to Peirce's initial answer to the question he poses as to what it is for something to be Real. But the question of the reality of habits as "would bes" yet remains to be considered. Note that his description here of a habit--a "lasting state that consists in the fact that the subject would, under certain conditions, behave in a certain way, is Real" concludes with the idea that "it must be admitted to be a Real Habit, even if those conditions never actually do get fulfilled."Now I recall Jon S also suggesting that something like this is the case not only for real generals (habits) but for real possibilities as well. It seems to me that Peirce's "extreme Scholastic realism" does argue that there are both real generals and real possibles, and that their reality is not dependent on whether the conditions bringing them into existence "actually do get fulfilled."Best,Gary RGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718 482-5690On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:Gary R - thanks; that's a great quotation. And yes, it does bring in his 'objective idealism' which is NOT equivalent to 'idealism'. Agreed - without the reality of generals, a theory is nominalistic - it can't be otherwise, for it is reduced to only two modal categories: Firstness and Secondness.
That's a vital comment - that
". . . reality means a certain kind of non-dependence upon thought, and so is a cognitionary characterEssentially, to me that means that reality doesn't depend upon what you or I may think of it but is itself, an operation of a general Mind. And most certainly, universals as generals do not, per se, in themselves, 'exist'. Instead, these generals 'exist'...within instantiations. "Matter is..mind hidebound with habits' 6.158BUT - we can certainly have semiosic Signs [that triad] without generals. Just think of a rhematic indexical sinsign [a spontaneous cry] operative only in Secondness and Firstness.Edwiina
On Mon 16/10/17 2:38 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:Jon S, Edwina, list,This remains a thorny issue, apparently. I personally have found the quotation below useful in thinking about the distinction Peirce makes between 'reality' and 'existence' and, by extension, the difference between realism and nominalism. In his late work Peirce held any theory which did not accept real generals and real possibles to be nominalistic.In this passage the first sentence, which makes reality "non-dependent on thought" and of a "cognitionary character," has led some commentators to suggest that the passage also points to Peirce's "objective idealism."". . . reality means a certain kind of non-dependence upon thought, and so is a cognitionary character, while existence means reaction with the environment, and so is a dynamic character; and accordingly the two meanings, he [the pragmatist] would say, are clearly not the same. Individualists are apt to fall into the almost incredible misunderstanding that all other men are individualists, too -- even the scholastic realists, who, they suppose, thought that "universals exist." [But] can any such person believe that the great doctors of that time believed that generals exist? They certainly did not so opine. . . Hence, before we treat of the evidences of pragmaticism, it will be needful to weigh the pros and cons of scholastic realism. For pragmaticism could hardly have entered a head that was not already convinced that there are real generals" (CP 5.503).Well, whether that quotation proves useful or not, I think that it's probably unlikely that this issue will be resolved in this thread, and that it may be indeed be a good time for Gary F to commence posting material from Lowell 2.Best,Gary RGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkOn Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:Edwina, List:Your response seems rather uncharitable; I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to revisit the argument right now.That said, I offer my sincere thanks for clarifying how you distinguish reality and existence, as well as your careful limitation of "things" to the latter. I would simply question the notion that anything can exist while having no generality whatsoever.And we explicitly agreed a few months ago to use the term Sign to designate the triad of Immediate Object, Representamen, and Immediate Interpretant.Regards,JonOn Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:Jon - that's a specious attempt to revisit this argument - i.e., your saying that 'some people might not have heard this debate before'. Well, tough, frankly it's not worth hearing about - and - I'm not going to revisit it with you.
I disagree that existence is a subset of reality, for that implies that both have the same qualities. An existence/ entity can exist within only the mode of Secondness and thus, have no generality in it, but reality requires generality. I disagree that 'some THING' can be real yet not exist'. If it's a 'thing' then it exists. Reality is Thirdness, or generality and is not a thing.
And we've been over your rejection of the Sign as a triad of Object-Representamen-Interpretant and your confining of the term 'Sign' to refer only to the mediate Representamen. Again, read 4.551 to its end.
There is no positive point in continuing this discussion since it's been done to exhaustion before.
Edwina
On Mon 16/10/17 1:02 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:Edwina, List:I know that we have been over this ground before, and I am not interested in repeating our past discussions, but there may be some following along now who were not on the List back then.Especially late in his life, Peirce carefully distinguished reality from existence, treating the latter as a subset of the former. Everything that exists is real, but something can be real yet not exist--and this is precisely the case with all generals in themselves (not their instantiations), as well as some possibilities that have not been (and may never be) actualized.Likewise, anything that is general is (by definition) not particular. If all Signs are particulars, then (by definition) no Signs are generals.Regards,JonOn Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:Jon - we've been over these terms before. Read 4.551 and you'll see the triad - and it's elsewhere as well.
You know perfectly well that by Sign [capital S] I refer to the triad of Object-Representamen-Interpretant. The Representamen is general when in a mode of Thirdness.
But you know all of that anyway.
Edwina
On Mon 16/10/17 12:22 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:Edwina, List:I think that it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly how you distinguish reality from existence in your statements below.I am also wondering where in Peirce's writings you find the view that every Sign is "a triadic particular...existent in space and time." On my reading, that would preclude any Sign from being truly general.Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran LaymanOn Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:Gary, list:
I presume you are being sarcastic.
I have always accepted the reality of generals and have posted this view frequently. What is Thirdness????? My point, also posted frequently, is that these generals, as real, are only 'existential' within 'material' instances, i.e., Signs, which are a triadic particular...existent in space and time, whether as a concept/word or a material entity [bacterium]. I don't see that Reality/Generals have any existence 'per se' outside of their articulation within Signs...and this view has been stated often enough by me - and of course, by Peirce.
So, sarcasm aside - we await your next posting.
Edwina
On Mon 16/10/17 9:21 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Edwina, List,
It’s good to see that you now accept the reality of generals, as your previous post appeared to reject it. That said, we need to focus on logical issues rather than metaphysical ones, as we dig deeper into Peirce’s Lowell lectures. For Lowell 2 especially, which is all about “necessary reasoning” and the logic of mathematics, we’ll need to clarify those issues. I’m ready to start posting from Lowell 2 tomorrow, unless others need more time to digest Lowell 1 before we move ahead.
As you are no doubt aware, CP 4.551 is a paragraph from “ Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism” (1906), which was his last and most complete public statement on Existential Graphs and their relation to his pragmaticism. In order to understand that context, and its place in Peirce’s whole system, I think we need to follow the development of EGs, starting with his first presentation of them to an audience, namely Lowell 2. Thanks to the SPIN project, we now have a chance to follow that development step by step. Peirce regarded this as the best way of resolving the logical issues we have been discussing in this thread. As someone with zero formal training in formal logic, I’m really looking forward to this as a way into deeper understanding of Peirce’s whole philosophy.
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: 16-Oct-17 08:24
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Jeffrey Brian DownardSubject: Re: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1: overviewJeff, list
"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world"....not only is thought in the organic world but it develops there. But as there cannot be a General without Instances embodying it, so there cannot be thought without Signs"...4.551
Peirce was not a materialist, nor am I am materialist. I am not saying that there is nothing 'real' outside of the material world. I am saying that 'reality' - understood as 'a General' only 'exists' within 'instances embodying it'. This means that Mind/thought/reason...which is a General, functions within Signs, and Signs are triadic instances [see his explanation in the rest of 4.551]... A triadic Sign is a 'material' unit, in that it exists in time and space, even if it is existent only as a word rather than a bacterium.
Re your first two points - since deduction, induction, abduction, can be valid in themselves as a format, I presume you are talking about the true/false nature of their premises....and since the debate seems to be on the Nature of Truth - then this issue, the truth/false nature of the premises is relevant. Taking that use of the terms into account [truth/false nature of the premises] , I agree with your outline of these three forms of argument..
And I also agree with your other two points.
I don't see that my position, which rests on 4.551 and other similar outlines by Peirce, rejects or is any different from his analysis.
Edwina
-----------------------------
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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
