Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Would a one who thinks universally not be a world spectator who agrees with Pinker and others that things actually are improving? No conspiracy there. Peirce might have been in the camp derisively called globalist if it aimed at a world where greed is reined in and agapaic things are not scoffed

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Quasi-minds Revisited

Gary F., List: I agree that it is important to maintain a sharp distinction between the Object and the Interpretant, and I believe that this is reflected in my current exposition of EP 2:304 in light of EP 2:305-307 and NEM 4:292-300. Matter (2ns) and Form (1ns) both pertain to the Object. The

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

"world spectator"? I've never heard such a thing. That sounds crazy. Does anyone else know what it is and why it would even belongs on this list? Best, Jerry R On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Jerry, > > Since you message is posted both to the

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Jerry, Since you message is posted both to the list and to me and seemingly in response to my last post, I'd like to know what in the world this "conspiracy" you allude to is? And what do you mean by "world spectator"? You haven't contextualize your strange remarks whatsoever, so I have no idea

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Dear list, That sounds like conspiracy. Surely there is a better story to be told.. "world spectator." It is he who decides, by having an idea of the whole, whether, in any single, particular event, progress is being made. Best, Jerry R On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Gary

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Gene, list, You concluded: EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many admirable individuals within it. That is why

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

Sounds like we are pretty much agreed, John. I have posited that we have about a century to get things right and that would include leeching science of nominalism and I would add binary proclivities. Peirce and Abbot were staunch realists who are one in moving metaphysics into a configuration that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

Stephen and Helmut, SCR I completely disagree that we live in a time of breakdown. I did not say 'breakdown'. I said 'fragmentation'. SCR The civilization the two men aimed at philosophically is an integration of the best of inherited metaphysics with science, arriving at a post-religious

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Dear Gary R., Yes, thanks, you understood my critique and likely difference of opinion. From my point of view your response, like that of many Peirceans, and sci-tech proponents more generally, takes an ideal of what science and technology should be as an excuse to deny their actual

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Stephen. list, SR: I think K. was referring to Peirce's "despair" about the application of reason by the bulk of humanity in this single passage. I don't think your reading of the lectures is in question. While the 1898 Cambridge lecture series--which Kirsti explicitly referred to--doesn't

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Gene, list, Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)" Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying,

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

I think K. was referring to Peirce's "despair" about the application of reason by the bulk of humanity in this single passage. I don't think your reading of the lectures is in question. It would be fairly easy to go through CP and pick and choose a small quilt of expressions that amount to a sort

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Quasi-minds Revisited

Helmut, list: Yes, the interpreter is also a Sign [semiosic triad] and part of the phaneron. ..which is made up of these triadic Signs in constant interaction with other triadic SignsThis semiosic action 'makes' matter, so to speak. It 'forms' matter-as-mind. Peirce wrote

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Kirsti, list, You'll have to give me and the list reasons for your saying this: KS: I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true views on science and vitally important matters. ​First, I have no idea what you mean by Peirce's "despair." I don't see any "despair"

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

There is ambivalence running through Peirce which is vitiated by an academic exegetical approach which ignores such passages. It has all sorts of ramifications including the present political divide between what we call populism and establishment. Peirce was genuinely not liked by his own ilk and

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)" Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying, overpopulated