Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

[Helmut Raulien]

Jerry, List, here is what I meant with the constructivist imperative: It is the "ethical imperative" by Heinz von Foerster, developed from Kant´s categorical imperative: "Always act in a way that makes the number of possibilities of actions increase". I think this would exclude the pursuit of ultimate aims. Lest you define this increase as ultimate aim. But this I find hard, though our economy is based on constant growth too. But I guess this makes it less ultimate in the sense of sustainability. Anyway, "ultimate" is a quibble-term, isn´t it? Best, Helmut.
 

 17. März 2018 um 22:13 Uhr
 "Jerry Rhee" 
wrote:



Dear list,

 

What a crazy.. uh, I mean creative concept, this having an ultimate aim.

There must, then, be more to this..

 

With best wishes,

Jerry R


 
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:




 

Stephen, List,

I agree. To bring in aesthetics is triadic thinking: Like the sign (representamen) mediates between the object and the interpretant, aesthetics mediates between logic and ethics: It is the bridge from "is" to "ought". But I think there are two kinds of bridge, one false and one right. The false bridge is seeing aesthetics as confining thoughts to an "ultimate end of action", this is the naturalist fallacy. The good bridge, as I see it, is aesthetics in accord with the constructivist imperative, freeing thoughts and helping them evolve to a good, well, not end, but intermediate station of ethics based on both ratio and aesthetics. I hope this is what Peirce meant, but am afraid he didn´t, for he was using the term "ultimate", which in this context sounds odd.

Best, Helmut


 17. März 2018 um 20:29 Uhr
"Stephen C. Rose" 
 




The notion of aesthetics as a significant conclusion to ethical reflection, assuming we are talking about finite decisions that will inevitably have some fallibility, is to me revolutionary. Why? Ask yourself how far we have gotten assuming that power alone can bring about good. It was the Bush (W) presupposition that shock and awe was compatible with the evolving of democracy. Mao also thought that revolution could be won by force. That is binary thought that is still rife. But what we think and its relation to Peirce is at best tangental.  To say what we think he thought different than saying what we think independently of Peirce. 
 


On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Jon, List,

OK, I had misunderstood it in a way as if for Peirce "an ultimate end of action" was his esthetic ideal, that would the end of life too, an apocalypse. But he meant it specific, i.e. only if deliberately adopted. But still there is the conclusion "the only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim". I donot have an ultimate aim, and donot want to have one, because I think that would be apocalyptic fundamentalism. This makes me moralically evil in Peirce´s view. I in return think, that this view is evil. It is the crassest form of naturalistic fallacy, and the opposite of the constructivist imperative, that identifies a good aim not with the end of thoughts, but with enlarging the number of possible thoughts.


But still, maybe, and I hope that it is so, I too strictly and biasedly suppose biophoby to the pursuit of an "ultimate end of action"?

Best, Helmut


 






 







- 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 .




-
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 .

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



What a crazy.. uh, I mean creative concept, this having an ultimate aim.

There must, then, be more to this..



With best wishes,

Jerry R


On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

>
> Stephen, List,
> I agree. To bring in aesthetics is triadic thinking: Like the sign
> (representamen) mediates between the object and the interpretant,
> aesthetics mediates between logic and ethics: It is the bridge from "is" to
> "ought". But I think there are two kinds of bridge, one false and one
> right. The false bridge is seeing aesthetics as confining thoughts to an
> "ultimate end of action", this is the naturalist fallacy. The good bridge,
> as I see it, is aesthetics in accord with the constructivist imperative,
> freeing thoughts and helping them evolve to a good, well, not end, but
> intermediate station of ethics based on both ratio and aesthetics. I hope
> this is what Peirce meant, but am afraid he didn´t, for he was using the
> term "ultimate", which in this context sounds odd.
> Best, Helmut
>  17. März 2018 um 20:29 Uhr
> "Stephen C. Rose" 
>
> The notion of aesthetics as a significant conclusion to ethical
> reflection, assuming we are talking about finite decisions that will
> inevitably have some fallibility, is to me revolutionary. Why? Ask yourself
> how far we have gotten assuming that power alone can bring about good. It
> was the Bush (W) presupposition that shock and awe was compatible with the
> evolving of democracy. Mao also thought that revolution could be won by
> force. That is binary thought that is still rife. But what we think and its
> relation to Peirce is at best tangental.  To say what we think he thought
> different than saying what we think independently of Peirce.
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>> Jon, List,
>> OK, I had misunderstood it in a way as if for Peirce "an ultimate end of
>> action" was his esthetic ideal, that would the end of life too, an
>> apocalypse. But he meant it specific, i.e. only if deliberately adopted.
>> But still there is the conclusion "the only moral evil is not to have an
>> ultimate aim". I donot have an ultimate aim, and donot want to have one,
>> because I think that would be apocalyptic fundamentalism. This makes me
>> moralically evil in Peirce´s view. I in return think, that this view is
>> evil. It is the crassest form of naturalistic fallacy, and the opposite of
>> the constructivist imperative, that identifies a good aim not with the end
>> of thoughts, but with enlarging the number of possible thoughts.
>> But still, maybe, and I hope that it is so, I too strictly and biasedly
>> suppose biophoby to the pursuit of an "ultimate end of action"?
>> Best, Helmut
>>
>>
>>
>
> - 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 .

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

[Helmut Raulien]

 

Stephen, List,

I agree. To bring in aesthetics is triadic thinking: Like the sign (representamen) mediates between the object and the interpretant, aesthetics mediates between logic and ethics: It is the bridge from "is" to "ought". But I think there are two kinds of bridge, one false and one right. The false bridge is seeing aesthetics as confining thoughts to an "ultimate end of action", this is the naturalist fallacy. The good bridge, as I see it, is aesthetics in accord with the constructivist imperative, freeing thoughts and helping them evolve to a good, well, not end, but intermediate station of ethics based on both ratio and aesthetics. I hope this is what Peirce meant, but am afraid he didn´t, for he was using the term "ultimate", which in this context sounds odd.

Best, Helmut


 17. März 2018 um 20:29 Uhr
"Stephen C. Rose" 
 


The notion of aesthetics as a significant conclusion to ethical reflection, assuming we are talking about finite decisions that will inevitably have some fallibility, is to me revolutionary. Why? Ask yourself how far we have gotten assuming that power alone can bring about good. It was the Bush (W) presupposition that shock and awe was compatible with the evolving of democracy. Mao also thought that revolution could be won by force. That is binary thought that is still rife. But what we think and its relation to Peirce is at best tangental.  To say what we think he thought different than saying what we think independently of Peirce. 
 


On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Jon, List,

OK, I had misunderstood it in a way as if for Peirce "an ultimate end of action" was his esthetic ideal, that would the end of life too, an apocalypse. But he meant it specific, i.e. only if deliberately adopted. But still there is the conclusion "the only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim". I donot have an ultimate aim, and donot want to have one, because I think that would be apocalyptic fundamentalism. This makes me moralically evil in Peirce´s view. I in return think, that this view is evil. It is the crassest form of naturalistic fallacy, and the opposite of the constructivist imperative, that identifies a good aim not with the end of thoughts, but with enlarging the number of possible thoughts.


But still, maybe, and I hope that it is so, I too strictly and biasedly suppose biophoby to the pursuit of an "ultimate end of action"?

Best, Helmut


 






 





- 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 .

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

[Stephen C. Rose]

The notion of aesthetics as a significant conclusion to ethical reflection,
assuming we are talking about finite decisions that will inevitably have
some fallibility, is to me revolutionary. Why? Ask yourself how far we have
gotten assuming that power alone can bring about good. It was the Bush (W)
presupposition that shock and awe was compatible with the evolving of
democracy. Mao also thought that revolution could be won by force. That is
binary thought that is still rife. But what we think and its relation to
Peirce is at best tangental.  To say what we think he thought different
than saying what we think independently of Peirce.

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Jon, List,
> OK, I had misunderstood it in a way as if for Peirce "an ultimate end of
> action" was his esthetic ideal, that would the end of life too, an
> apocalypse. But he meant it specific, i.e. only if deliberately adopted.
> But still there is the conclusion "the only moral evil is not to have an
> ultimate aim". I donot have an ultimate aim, and donot want to have one,
> because I think that would be apocalyptic fundamentalism. This makes me
> moralically evil in Peirce´s view. I in return think, that this view is
> evil. It is the crassest form of naturalistic fallacy, and the opposite of
> the constructivist imperative, that identifies a good aim not with the end
> of thoughts, but with enlarging the number of possible thoughts.
> But still, maybe, and I hope that it is so, I too strictly and biasedly
> suppose biophoby to the pursuit of an "ultimate end of action"?
> Best, Helmut
>
>
>
>

-
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 .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



I suppose the agreement we have achieved regarding Perfect Sign is what
Peirce must have meant when distinguishing between absolute truth and what
we do not doubt.  This analysis of our ultimate end of action is ready to
be deliberately adopted because it recommends itself in itself.  It is an
admirable ideal.  It possesses esthetic goodness.



I think this opinion is true.

I judge it to be good.

This is the upon which I am prepared and willing to act.



That is, it is assured that I am not engaged in “moral evil”,

for I am engaged in the active pursuit of *this*.



*In accordance with this, what you cannot in the least help believing is
not, justly speaking, wrong belief.  In other words, for you it is the
absolute truth.  *

*True, it is conceivable that what you cannot help believing to-day, you
might find you thoroughly disbelieve to-morrow. *



*In every stage of your excogitations, there is something of which you can
only say, “I cannot think otherwise,” and your experientially based
hypothesis is that the impossibility is of the second kind.  *



*Of course, that ultimate state of habit to which the action of
self-control ultimately tends, where no room is left for further
self-control, is, in the case of thought, the state of fixed belief, or
perfect knowledge.  *



*Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember.  *



*The first is that a person is not absolutely an individual.  *

*The second thing to remember is that the man’s circle of society is a sort
of loosely compacted person, in some respect of higher rank than the person
of an individual organism.  **But when a person finds himself in the
society of others, he is just as sure of their existence as of his own,
though he may entertain a metaphysical theory that they are
all hypostatically the same ego.*



*It is these two things alone that render it possible for you,- but only in
the abstract, and in a Pickwickian sense,- to distinguish between absolute
truth and what you do not doubt.  *

With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Helmut, List:
>
> Obviously one should read the entire context of the quote, and not jump to
> conclusions based on the mere snippet that I offered to address a very
> specific point.
>
> CSP:  ... an ultimate end of action *deliberately *adopted,--that is to
> say, *reasonably *adopted,--must be a state of things that *reasonably
> recommends itself in itself* aside from any ulterior consideration. It
> must be an *admirable ideal*, having the only kind of goodness that such
> an ideal *can *have, namely, esthetic goodness. From this point of view
> the morally good appears as a particular species of the esthetically good.
> (CP 5.130, EP 2:201; 1903)
>
>
> Any end of action that fails this test is "An aim which cannot be adopted
> and consistently pursued ... It cannot properly be called an *ultimate
> aim* at all."  Therefore, anyone who actively pursues it is engaged in
> "moral evil."
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
>> List,
>> the quote:
>>
>> CSP: But the instant that an esthetic ideal is proposed as an ultimate
>> end of action, at that instant a categorical imperative pronounces for
>> or against it ... So then, it appears to me that any aim whatever which
>> can be consistently pursued becomes, as soon as it is unfalteringly
>> adopted, beyond all possible criticism, except the quite impertinent
>> criticism of outsiders. An aim which cannot be adopted and consistently
>> pursued is a bad aim. It cannot properly be called an *ultimate aim* at
>> all. The only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim. (CP 5.133, EP
>> 2:202; 1903)
>>
>> is completely evil, isn´t it? It could be from Hitler or the IS. Had
>> Peirce eaten, drunk, or smoked something wrong before writing it?
>> Best, Helmut
>> 16. März 2018 um 22:34 Uhr
>>
>>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>> wrote:
>> Gene, List:
>>
>> Thanks for your comments and questions.
>>
>> To clarify, all that I meant by "morally responsible Persons" was how I
>> defined "Person" in the previous thread on "Metaphysics of
>> Semiosis"--namely, "an embodied metaphysical Quasi-mind who additionally
>> has a *center of consciousness*, which provides a *unity of feeling* to
>> coordinate the corresponding continuity of reactions and bundle of habits,"
>> which "is what makes it possible to recognize the *Inner World* and
>> distinguish it from the *Outer World*," and thus exercise *self-control*.
>> As such, *every* Person is (by definition) "morally responsible"; i.e., 
>> subject
>> to moral approval *or *disapproval, praise *or *blame.
>>
>> The idea of *voluntary *participation comes from Peirce's remark that "the
>> ideal of conduct will be to execute our little function in the operation of
>> the creation by giving a hand toward rendering the world more 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Helmut, List:

Obviously one should read the entire context of the quote, and not jump to
conclusions based on the mere snippet that I offered to address a very
specific point.

CSP:  ... an ultimate end of action *deliberately *adopted,--that is to
say, *reasonably *adopted,--must be a state of things that *reasonably
recommends itself in itself* aside from any ulterior consideration. It must
be an *admirable ideal*, having the only kind of goodness that such an
ideal *can *have, namely, esthetic goodness. From this point of view the
morally good appears as a particular species of the esthetically good. (CP
5.130, EP 2:201; 1903)


Any end of action that fails this test is "An aim which cannot be adopted
and consistently pursued ... It cannot properly be called an *ultimate aim*
at all."  Therefore, anyone who actively pursues it is engaged in "moral
evil."

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> List,
> the quote:
>
> CSP: But the instant that an esthetic ideal is proposed as an ultimate
> end of action, at that instant a categorical imperative pronounces for or
> against it ... So then, it appears to me that any aim whatever which can
> be consistently pursued becomes, as soon as it is unfalteringly adopted,
> beyond all possible criticism, except the quite impertinent criticism of
> outsiders. An aim which cannot be adopted and consistently pursued is a
> bad aim. It cannot properly be called an *ultimate aim* at all. The only
> moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim. (CP 5.133, EP 2:202; 1903)
>
> is completely evil, isn´t it? It could be from Hitler or the IS. Had
> Peirce eaten, drunk, or smoked something wrong before writing it?
> Best, Helmut
> 16. März 2018 um 22:34 Uhr
>
>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> wrote:
> Gene, List:
>
> Thanks for your comments and questions.
>
> To clarify, all that I meant by "morally responsible Persons" was how I
> defined "Person" in the previous thread on "Metaphysics of
> Semiosis"--namely, "an embodied metaphysical Quasi-mind who additionally
> has a *center of consciousness*, which provides a *unity of feeling* to
> coordinate the corresponding continuity of reactions and bundle of habits,"
> which "is what makes it possible to recognize the *Inner World* and
> distinguish it from the *Outer World*," and thus exercise *self-control*.
> As such, *every* Person is (by definition) "morally responsible"; i.e., 
> subject
> to moral approval *or *disapproval, praise *or *blame.
>
> The idea of *voluntary *participation comes from Peirce's remark that "the
> ideal of conduct will be to execute our little function in the operation of
> the creation by giving a hand toward rendering the world more reasonable
> whenever, as the slang is, it is 'up to us' to do so."  I have no objection
> to your suggestion that people can and do also participate unwittingly, or
> even unwillingly; but my point was to highlight the specific *ethical 
> *implication
> that Peirce drew from his identification of the *esthetic *ideal, the *summum
> bonum*.
>
>
> CSP:  But the instant that an esthetic ideal is proposed as an ultimate
> end of action, at that instant a categorical imperative pronounces for or
> against it ... So then, it appears to me that any aim whatever which can
> be consistently pursued becomes, as soon as it is unfalteringly adopted,
> beyond all possible criticism, except the quite impertinent criticism of
> outsiders. An aim which cannot be adopted and consistently pursued is a
> bad aim. It cannot properly be called an *ultimate aim* at all. The only
> moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim. (CP 5.133, EP 2:202; 1903)
>
>
> As you might expect, my own rather traditional Christian theism is such
> that I part ways with Peirce on certain matters of religious philosophy.
> Statements like "sin is a creation of God" and "God delights in evil,"
> which are from R 890 (no date), are very much in that category.  What he
> wrote in "Evolutionary Love," amid various quotes from the Gospel and
> Epistle of John, is similar but somewhat less problematic for me.
>
>
> CSP:  Nevertheless, the ontological gospeller ... made the One Supreme
> Being, by whom all things have been made out of nothing, to be
> cherishing-love. What, then, can he say to hate? ... His statement that
> God is love seems aimed at that saying of Ecclesiastes that we cannot
> tell whether God bears us love or hatred. "Nay," says John, "we can tell,
> and very simply! We know and have trusted the love which God hath in us.
> God is love." There is no logic in this, unless it means that God loves all
> men ... We are to understand, then, that as darkness is merely the defect
> of light, so hatred and evil are mere imperfect stages of {agapé} and
> {agathon}, love and loveliness ... That is to say, God visits no
> punishment on them; they punish themselves, by their natural affinity for
> the defective. Thus, the love that God is,