Re: [peirce-l] Book Review: "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism"

[Jon Awbrey]

A Facebook acquaintance posted this on my wall ...

Bakhtin Meets Pocahontas --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GITVPh7GVSE

Cheers,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To 
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the 
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the 
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

[Gary Richmond]

Leo, Jon, List,
*

Although there's a great deal more to be said about the relations of ethics, 
esthetic (Peirce's spelling for the theoretical science), and logic as 
semeiotic, a quick and dirty response to your comment that "It's interesting 
that logic depends upon ethics and, in turn, aesthetics  when dependence is 
itself a logical relation" is that (as previously discussed on the list in a 
related context) all the sciences of discovery--that is, all the pure or 
theoretical sciences--preceding logic as semeiotic (logica docens) in Peirce's 
classification of the sciences, all these sciences quasi-necessary employ a 
logica utens (the ordinary logic of any normal thinking person). These sciences 
are, of course, theoretical mathematics, phenomenology, esthetics and ethics. 
Once a logica docens is developed, however, it may be employed 
*retrospectively*, as it were, in consideration of the sciences preceding it.
*
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 order: 1ns 
(esthetic), then 2ns (ethics), then 3ns (logic). One may also look at the three 
involutionally (logic involves ethics which, in turn, involves esthetic) or, 
even, according to the vector of representation (logic shows esthetic to be in 
that particular relation to ethics which Peirce holds them to be in). But only 
a very few scholars have taken up tricategorial vector relations. Indeed, R. J. 
Parmentier and I are the only folk I know of who have published work on 
possible paths of movement (vectors) through a genuine trichotomic relation 
which does *not* follow the Hegelian order: 1ns then 2ns then 3ns. Indeed, with 
a  few exceptions, there appears at present to be relatively little interest in 
Peirce's categories generally speaking. Given the way they pervade his 
scientific and philosophical work, and considering how highly he valued their 
discovery, this has always struck me as quite odd.
*
Best, Gary

Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
E202-O
718 482-5700

*** *** *** ***
>>> Leo  03/27/12 4:23 AM >>>
Nice.
It's interesting that logic depends upon ethics and, in turn, aesthetics 
when dependence is itself a logical relation.
Rather hard to get one's head around.




On 3/26/2012 9:48 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> Peircers,
>
> I found the figure I used to draw to explain that
> "pragmatic ordering of the normative sciences" --
>
> Re: The Pragmatic Cosmos
> At: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html
>
> o-o
> | |
> |o|
> |   / \   |
> |  /   \  |
> | / \ |
> |o---o|
> |   /| Logic |\   |
> |  / |   | \  |
> | /  |   |  \ |
> |o---o|
> |   /|   | Ethic |   |\   |
> |  / |   |   |   | \  |
> | /  |   |   |   |  \ |
> |o---o|
> |   /|   |   Aesthetic   |   |\   |
> |  / |   |   |   |   |   | \  |
> | /  |   |   |   |   |   |  \ |
> |o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o|
> | |
> o-o
> Figure 1.  The Pragmatic Cosmos
>
> Here is the Figure that goes with this description of the Pragmatic 
> Cosmos,
> or the pragmatically ordered normative sciences:  Aesthetics, Ethics, and
> Logic.  The arrangement is best viewed as a planar projection of a solid
> geometric configuration, as three cylinders on concentric circular bases,
> all subtending an overarching cone.  This way of viewing the situation
> brings into focus the two independent or orthogonal order relations
> that exist among the normative sciences.  In regard to their bases,
> logic is a special case of ethics and aesthetics, and ethics is
> a special case of aesthetics, understanding these concepts in
> their broadest senses.  In respect of their altitudes, logic
> exercises a critical perspective on ethics and aesthetics,
> and ethics exercises a critical perspective on aesthetics.
>

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a messag

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircers,

Here's another prospectus on normative inquiry that I wrote up in September 
1992.

Prospects For Inquiry Driven Systems

1.3.1. Logic, Ethics, Esthetics

The philosophy I find myself converging to more often lately is the pragmatism of C.S. Peirce and John Dewey. According 
to this account, logic, ethics, and esthetics form a concentric series of normative sciences, each a subdiscipline of 
the next. Logic tells how one ought to conduct one's reasoning in order to achieve the stated goals of reasoning in 
general. Thus logic is a special application of ethics. Ethics tells how one ought to conduct one's activities in 
general in order to achieve the good appropriate to each enterprise. What makes the difference between a normative 
science and a prescriptive dogma is whether this "telling" is based on actual inquiry into the relationship of conduct 
to result, or not.


In this view, logic and ethics do not set goals, they merely serve them. Of course, logic may examine the consistency of 
an arbitrary selection of goals in the light of what science tells about the likely repercussions in nature of trying to 
actualize them all. Logic and ethics may serve the criticism of certain goals by pointing out the deductive implications 
and probable effects of striving toward them, but it has to be some other science which finds and tells whether these 
effects are preferred and encouraged or detested and discouraged relative to a particular form of being.


The science which examines individual goods, species goods, and generic goods from an outside perspective must be an 
esthetic science. The capacity for inquiry into a subject must depend on the capacity for uncertainty about that 
subject. Esthetics is capable of inquiry into the nature of the good precisely because it is able to be in question 
about what is good. Whether conceived as empirical science or as experimental art, it is the job of esthetics to 
determine what might be good for us. Through the exploration of artistic media we find out what satisfies our own form 
of being. Through the expeditions of science we discover and further the goals of own species' evolution.


Outriggers to these excursions are given by the comparative study of biological species and the computational study of 
abstractly specified systems. These provide extra ways to find out what is the sensible goal of an individual system and 
what is the perceived good for a particular species of creature. It is especially interesting to learn about the 
relationships that can be represented internally to a system's development between the good of a system and the system's 
perception, knowledge, intuition, feeling, or whatever sense it may have of its goal. This amounts to asking the 
questions: What good can a system be able to sense for itself? How can a system discover its own best interests? How can 
a system achieve, from the evidence of experience, a cognizance, evidenced in behavior, of its own best interests?


http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Essays/Prospects_For_Inquiry_Driven_Systems#1.3.1._Logic.2C_Ethics.2C_Esthetics

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To 
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the 
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the 
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

[Jon Awbrey]

Re: Frances Kelly
At: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8051

Frances,

I hadn't been expecting to untangle their complex inter-relationships and
mutual dependencies in a single fixed hierarchy -- something more like the
Vortices of Yeats comes to mind even at a first glance, except it would take
a trio of tornadoes in this case -- and things that are ordered one way under
one light may be ordered another way under another light.  The problem that
Peirce gives us is how to understand the way in which logic might be seen
as a special case of ethics and ethics might be seen as a special case of
aesthetics, all without denying the obvious applications of each form of
inquiry to all the others.

Here's another bunch of bits I emitted on this subject:

• 
http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_:_Part_5#5.2.10._The_Pragmatic_Cosmos

I apologize for the style of writing in that material --
those are things I wrote 1 or 2 decades ago and it will
take 2 or 3 passes before I can extract the substance in
any tolerable form.

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To 
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the 
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the 
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

[Stephen C. Rose]

I am waiting for the day when values replaces ethics as a base term for
discussing morality and, if a hierarchy is pertinent, when ontological
values would be right up there wherever thought (musement) begins. I think
we have confused virtues and characteristics with values from the gitgo.
(See the Bard on honor.) And we have made ethics synonymous with morality
and managed to devalue the entire exercise. My cottoning to Peirce relates
somewhat to the probability that he might agree which is why I second the
sense that Peirce failed in this respect during his lifetime,  while
leaving a foundation for us to adapt and build on. Best, S

*ShortFormContent at Blogger* 



On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Frances Kelly
wrote:

> Jon and others...
> This overview of mine on your idea is merely a curiosity, yet it
> is also a thorn for me, and my overview may be off base, but let
> me thrash it out.
>
> There could be a difference to note in the giving or getting of
> the categories in regard to determinacy and dependency. (This
> topic was slightly dealt with in messages some months back.) The
> gist of the topic was that any lower category is determinant of
> its next higher category, and that any higher category is
> dependent on its next lower category. For example, objects as a
> second determine representamen as a first and interpretants as a
> third depend on their objects and representamen.
>
> The hierarchy of the normative sciences to be consistent with
> this take on the categories may therefore be more dependently
> regressive than determinately progressive as a matter of fact, in
> that ethics seems to be applied aesthetics and logics seems to be
> applied ethics.
>
> Incidentally, the sketch outlining the normative sciences built
> up in an architectonic way seems correct, but the higher logics
> would likely have the majority of inner compartments with
> aesthetics having only one whole compartment and ethics having
> just two main compartments. This approach of course implies that
> dependent higher categories are more say divided or detailed,
> although nonetheless with greater simplicity, if that is not a
> contradiction with the assumed complexity of determinant lower
> categories.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: C S Peirce discussion list
> [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 12:48 AM
> To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> Subject: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos
>
> Peircers,
>
> I found the figure I used to draw to explain that "pragmatic
> ordering of the normative sciences" --
>
> Re: The Pragmatic Cosmos
> At: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html
>
> o-o
> | |
> |o|
> |   / \   |
> |  /   \  |
> | / \ |
> |o---o|
> |   /| Logic |\   |
> |  / |   | \  |
> | /  |   |  \ |
> |o---o|
> |   /|   | Ethic |   |\   |
> |  / |   |   |   | \  |
> | /  |   |   |   |  \ |
> |o---o|
> |   /|   |   Aesthetic   |   |\   |
> |  / |   |   |   |   |   | \  |
> | /  |   |   |   |   |   |  \ |
> |o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o|
> | |
> o-o
> Figure 1.  The Pragmatic Cosmos
>
> Here is the Figure that goes with this description of the
> Pragmatic Cosmos, or the pragmatically ordered normative
> sciences:  Aesthetics, Ethics, and Logic.  The arrangement is
> best viewed as a planar projection of a solid geometric
> configuration, as three cylinders on concentric circular bases,
> all subtending an overarching cone.  This way of viewing the
> situation brings into focus the two independent or orthogonal
> order relations that exist among the normative sciences.  In
> regard to their bases, logic is a special case of ethics and
> aesthetics, and ethics is a special case of aesthetics,
> understanding these concepts in their broadest senses.  In
> respect of their altitudes, logic exercises a critical
> perspective on ethics and aesthetics, and ethics exercises a
> critical perspective on aesthetics.
>
>
> -
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
> listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
> lists...@listserv.iup

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

[Frances Kelly]

Jon and others... 
This overview of mine on your idea is merely a curiosity, yet it
is also a thorn for me, and my overview may be off base, but let
me thrash it out. 

There could be a difference to note in the giving or getting of
the categories in regard to determinacy and dependency. (This
topic was slightly dealt with in messages some months back.) The
gist of the topic was that any lower category is determinant of
its next higher category, and that any higher category is
dependent on its next lower category. For example, objects as a
second determine representamen as a first and interpretants as a
third depend on their objects and representamen. 

The hierarchy of the normative sciences to be consistent with
this take on the categories may therefore be more dependently
regressive than determinately progressive as a matter of fact, in
that ethics seems to be applied aesthetics and logics seems to be
applied ethics. 

Incidentally, the sketch outlining the normative sciences built
up in an architectonic way seems correct, but the higher logics
would likely have the majority of inner compartments with
aesthetics having only one whole compartment and ethics having
just two main compartments. This approach of course implies that
dependent higher categories are more say divided or detailed,
although nonetheless with greater simplicity, if that is not a
contradiction with the assumed complexity of determinant lower
categories. 


-Original Message-
From: C S Peirce discussion list
[mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 12:48 AM
To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

Peircers,

I found the figure I used to draw to explain that "pragmatic
ordering of the normative sciences" --

Re: The Pragmatic Cosmos
At: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html

o-o
| |
|o|
|   / \   |
|  /   \  |
| / \ |
|o---o|
|   /| Logic |\   |
|  / |   | \  |
| /  |   |  \ |
|o---o|
|   /|   | Ethic |   |\   |
|  / |   |   |   | \  |
| /  |   |   |   |  \ |
|o---o|
|   /|   |   Aesthetic   |   |\   |
|  / |   |   |   |   |   | \  |
| /  |   |   |   |   |   |  \ |
|o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o|
| |
o-o
Figure 1.  The Pragmatic Cosmos

Here is the Figure that goes with this description of the
Pragmatic Cosmos, or the pragmatically ordered normative
sciences:  Aesthetics, Ethics, and Logic.  The arrangement is
best viewed as a planar projection of a solid geometric
configuration, as three cylinders on concentric circular bases,
all subtending an overarching cone.  This way of viewing the
situation brings into focus the two independent or orthogonal
order relations that exist among the normative sciences.  In
regard to their bases, logic is a special case of ethics and
aesthetics, and ethics is a special case of aesthetics,
understanding these concepts in their broadest senses.  In
respect of their altitudes, logic exercises a critical
perspective on ethics and aesthetics, and ethics exercises a
critical perspective on aesthetics.

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

[peirce-l] Peirce for a wider audience

[Stephen C. Rose]

Here is an example:

Fallibilism applies to both scientists and religionists http://ping.fm/a5wzV


*ShortFormContent at Blogger* 

-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to 
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Re: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos

[Leo]

Nice.
It's interesting that logic depends upon ethics and, in turn, aesthetics 
when dependence is itself a logical relation.

Rather hard to get one's head around.




On 3/26/2012 9:48 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Peircers,

I found the figure I used to draw to explain that
"pragmatic ordering of the normative sciences" --

Re: The Pragmatic Cosmos
At: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html

o-o
| |
|o|
|   / \   |
|  /   \  |
| / \ |
|o---o|
|   /| Logic |\   |
|  / |   | \  |
| /  |   |  \ |
|o---o|
|   /|   | Ethic |   |\   |
|  / |   |   |   | \  |
| /  |   |   |   |  \ |
|o---o|
|   /|   |   Aesthetic   |   |\   |
|  / |   |   |   |   |   | \  |
| /  |   |   |   |   |   |  \ |
|o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o|
| |
o-o
Figure 1.  The Pragmatic Cosmos

Here is the Figure that goes with this description of the Pragmatic 
Cosmos,

or the pragmatically ordered normative sciences:  Aesthetics, Ethics, and
Logic.  The arrangement is best viewed as a planar projection of a solid
geometric configuration, as three cylinders on concentric circular bases,
all subtending an overarching cone.  This way of viewing the situation
brings into focus the two independent or orthogonal order relations
that exist among the normative sciences.  In regard to their bases,
logic is a special case of ethics and aesthetics, and ethics is
a special case of aesthetics, understanding these concepts in
their broadest senses.  In respect of their altitudes, logic
exercises a critical perspective on ethics and aesthetics,
and ethics exercises a critical perspective on aesthetics.



-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To 
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the 
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the 
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU