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

Re: [peirce-l] Help on a Peirce Quote

[Frances Kelly]

Frances to Gary and others... 
This very loose thrust of mine may not be what you are seeking,
but it is my raw first guess at what the thorn could be, which
might be grounded in the idea of evolutionary love. With my
apologies it is given as a speculative whimper without any
references. 
 
Gary partly wrote... 
At the time of that earlier discussion the consensus of thread
participants was that this did *not* represent a kind of circular
reasoning. But, as I'm working on an article centered on the
"Logic is rooted in the social principle" idea, I'm wondering if
anyone has any fresh thoughts about this now that these two
different ways of stating this notion have been connected to the
"He who would not sacrifice his own soul" idea, something I don't
recall occurring in the earlier discussion (which restricted
itself to the reversal of the language of the concluding
thought). 
 
 
 
Evolutionary Love 
 
Evolutionary love is the pragmatist principle that things have an
engrained purpose to give of themselves freely for its own sake
and expect nothing in return for the effort. If some other thing
should benefit from this as an effort, then so be it. Nature
seemingly insists that this purpose ought to be enacted by all
things, from the smallest to the largest and the greatest, even
eventuating in religion and society and science. 
 
For an individual human being to be reasonable toward any other
fellow human person for no ulterior motive is to in fact and deed
show evolutionary love of the highest order. The related social
principle of inclusion holds that the interests of the single
person are in effect those of whole society, so that both the
individual and the communal are inseparable. The individual
member who sacrifices their own self or life and soul for the
good of the whole communal group is most logical and rational and
reasonable. This does not deny the existence or presence of
singular individuals who are particular and peculiar in favor of
the general class or communal species, because the individual can
take exploratory paths as evolutionary routes that deviate from
the best direction or goal, which may be bad or wrong and even
evil. 
 
It is after all the collective community of normal individuals
who by a consensus of their opinion will tentatively agree on
what eventually should be good as nice and correct and true, the
forming of such opinion which is a dispositional tendency culled
from an engrained habit of evolutionary conduct. It is the
totality of inferences and agreements held by individuals and by
communities that determines the best way. The social principle of
individual sacrifice and inclusion is clearly rooted in logical
reasonableness. It is therefore unwarranted and unjust to exclude
any other normal individual from the group for reasons that are
unnatural, and wrongly relegate them to the marginal periphery of
society. 
 
It is thus likely true that the individual is no greater than the
communal, and that the communal is no greater than the
individual. The sole member as a part cannot exist without the
whole class as a group, nor can any whole exist without any part.
It also seems that logical reasonableness in turn is further
rooted in the social principle of individual and communal
sacrifice as well as their inclusion. 
 
The evolving status of knowledge by scientists in science is thus
potentially infinite or at least indefinite. Scientific knowledge
is hence not limited by the fate of any singular theory or
particular theorist. It is the search for probable knowledge that
is important, and not its final attainment, which attainment is
not possible in any event for humans. 
 
The issue might then turn on whether human inferential logic is
as good as evolving reasonable thought can get in the whole wide
world. 
 
 
 

-
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] Book/article needed

[Frances Kelly]

Linda... 
Could not find an editable version of the entry. You may have the
following leads. 
 
My raw Google Scholar Books search gave me this snapshot of the
entry from the book, but it likely cannot be copied or printed. 
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en

&lr=&id=cil7WbXg8BkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA193&dq=The+Semiotics+of+C.S.+Pei
rce+as+a+Theoretical+Framework+for+the+Understanding+of+Comics&ot
s=9KNX80NKxS&sig=dE9YgBzZpSyKwsyZyjlgkMixc_k#v=onepage&q=The%20Se
miotics%20of%20C.S.%20Peirce%20as%20a%20Theoretical%20Framework%2
0for%20the%20Understanding%20of%20Comics&f=false 
 
My further Google search gave me this review of the entry. 
http://blog.emaki.net/2009/03/review-semiotics-and-comics.html 
 
There may of course be more leads not yet found by me. 
---Frances 
 
 
From: C S Peirce discussion list
[mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Linda R Waugh
Sent: Sunday, 20 November, 2011 9:55 PM
To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: [peirce-l] Book/article needed
 
Sorry to break up the slow reading, but I'm looking for the
following:
Magnussen, Anne. "The Semiotics of C.S. Peirce as a Theoretical
Framework for the Understanding of Comics." In Comics Culture:
Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2000. 
Can anyone help me?  
Thanks, Linda Waugh


Dr. Linda R. Waugh
Interim Director, English Language/Linguistics, M.A. in ESL,
http://english.arizona.edu/index_site.php?id=258 
Member, Executive Council, Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in
Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT),
http://www.coh.arizona.edu/SLAT/
Co-Director, Center for Educational Resources in Culture,
Language, and Literacy (CERCLL), http://cercll.arizona.edu/
Professor of French, English, Anthropology, Linguistics, and
Language, Reading and Culture, http://waugh.faculty.arizona.edu/
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA.
Executive Director, Roman Jakobson Intellectual Trust 
-

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 

-
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