Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

Dear Jason, I think the basic point is that "materialist science," as Fish calls it, is not science at all. It both assumes the essential things of the world are discovered and forbids new discovery in foundations: we are limited to "strings" or "particles" or "probability," none of which can l

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

Ben and list, In part it is a reflection of what I like to talk about, but they tend to reject a variant of your fourth bullet point, especially either the direct or indirect implications of "Four Incapacities," "Consequences of Four Incapacities," and the continuity of inference and semiotic. Ho

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

I said this wrong. Changed below between pairs of asterisks. Sorry! - Best, Ben - Original Message - Jason, list, That's interesting. What aspects of synechism do they reject? a.. Continuity of space and time? Lorentz symmetries seem to make such continuity pretty credible. b.. Id

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

Steven, This seems to be a plausible judgment of contemporary scene, if a sparse one. If I continue with this, then might I ask exactly what constitutes being a scientific dualist on your view? I would agree that many contemporary positions are prima facie crypto-dualist, if that is what you mea

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

And here is the little commentary I did on the Stanley Fish piece Steven mentions; Fallibilism applies to both scientists and religionists Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One? - NYTimes.com

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

Dear Cathy, "Non-Peirceans," if you will forgive the over simplification, are in two camps: 1. the religious dualist, 2. the scientific dualist. Often they are in both. One does not know how to ground what Peirce calls "Thirdness" (more generally, "the mind") in their conce

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

When I say I like Peirce I mean 1. I was drawn to him because of similarities between what I took to be his life and mine. 2. I was led by him with some help from Feibleman to a massive clarification in my own thinking - to Peirce as one who integrates idealism, realism and pragmaticism. 3. I do

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

I can confirm that last bit about the difficulty of explaining these concepts, though I do so as a Deweyan always wondering exactly how did he borrow and deviate from Peirce's concepts. I do hear a number of people say that they "like Peirce," but it is never clear to what they are referring. Tha

[peirce-l] Idealization (was: Book Review: "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism")

That is a very rich reply, Gene, thank you. You write: >>”The problem of modern idealization involves what Max Weber called rationalization, but it also involves the colonization of the sentiments by idealizing rationality, in effect, disabling the spontaneous self and its spontaneous reasona

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

Gary R wrote: * >>For my own part, I tend--as perhaps Jon does as well--to see esthetic/ethics/logic as semeiotic as being in genuine tricategorial relation so that they *inform* each other in interesting ways. Trichotomic vector theory, then, does not demand that one necessarily always follow the

Re: [peirce-l] Aesthetics, Axiology, and Artistic Truth

Thank you for posting your thoughts on this, Michael! How does the concept of style which you elaborate below relate to Peirce's distinction of 'tone' from 'token' and 'type'? Cheers, Cathy -Original Message- From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf