[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
I am very sorry to hear that. Thomas. On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:08:53 +0200, John Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I have not been subscribed to the Peirce-L list since my university changed my email address to fit its corporate image. I was getting reports regularly from my student Arnold Shepperson. I regret to inform you that Arnold died yesterday of a heart attack. It was a shock to me, since I saw him shortly before his death, and he seemed fine, and very enthusiastic. It is a loss to me personally, but also, I think, to the wider world. Arnold was well on his way to giving a Peircean response to Arrow's paradox of social choice by rejecting Arrow's explicitly nominalist assumptions on ordering, using the idea of sequence instead, as found in Peirce. My best to everyone. John -- Professor John Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: What fundamental psychological laws is Peirce referring to?
Bill, list,
In addition to the story of Genie, there's plenty of evidence in
developmental psychology that reasoning, and indeed language, is a
social phenomenon. I'd mention Vygotsky and Tomasello, but then i'd have
to leave out all the others.
I'm surprised to see this part of your message though:
[[ One of the strong-holds of the unitive world-view you seem to prefer
has been the traditional Orient, where life has historically been
cheaper than dirt and mass exterminations of humans nearly routine. A
modern example is Maoist purges and the rape and pillage of Tibet. Mao
and Stalin each surpassed Hitler's atrocities. ]]
So did the European invasion of what we now call the Americas. History
does not at all bear out your suggestion that genocide is an oriental
phenomenon or that life is cheaper on the other side of the world.
[[ For the human to assume responsibility is an act of hubris. Isn't
that the message of the Bhagavad Gita? So kill away, oh nobly born,
and forget this conscience thing, an obvious lapse into ego. ]]
No, that is not the message of the Bhagavad Gita. You might have a look
at Gandhi's commentary on it -- Gandhi (1926), ed. John Strohmeier
(2000), The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi (Berkeley, CA: Berkeley
Hills). Gandhi acknowledged the Gita as the main inspiration for his
life and work. Would you say that he was deficient in conscience?
As i hinted in my previous message, i see a close parallel to Peirce's
ideal of scientific method (or of the motivation for it) in the
bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism, which is simply that one vows to
work for universal enlightenment, not for private salvation or personal
attainment of nirvana. The more i study them, the more i'm convinced
that the deepest currents of culture in East and West differ mostly in
accidental respects such as terminology, and it behooves us to see
through the differences.
However i don't cling to this thesis tenaciously ... if you can present
evidence to the contrary, by all means do so!
gary F.
}Set thy heart upon thy work, but never upon its reward. [Bhagavad-Gita
2:47]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
"...a loss to the Peirce community" Claudio - Mensaje original - De: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Sábado, Septiembre 30, 2006 8:44 am Asunto: [peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson John Collier said: I regret to inform you that Arnold died yesterday of a heart attack. It was a shock to me, since I saw him shortly before his death, and he seemed fine, and very enthusiastic. It is a loss to me personally, but also, I think, to the wider world. Arnold was well on his way to giving a Peircean response to Arrow's paradox of social choice by rejecting Arrow's explicitly nominalist assumptions on ordering, using the idea of sequence instead, as found in Peirce.And a loss to the Peirce community, John, to which Arnold had already contributed much.. Thanks for letting us know. Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] My best to everyone. John-- Professor John Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Ethics, University of KwaZulu- Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
Arnold was always so kind, encouraging and enthusiastic in his post. And always bubbling with interesting ideas. Like so many others I will miss him. And remember him as an ideal to follow. Thanks for informing us John. My sympathies to you and Arnold's family and friends. A sad day. Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
John and Peirce list, This is very shocking and sad news of the loss of a fine scholar and, in my estimation, a great soul. Over the years Arnold and I had a number of fruitful email exchanges on Peirce-l and privately. Late last year he sent me a report which included analyses relating to the theme you mentioned in your note to the Peirce list. You wrote: [JC] Arnold was well on his way to giving a Peircean response to Arrow's paradox of social choice by rejecting Arrow's explicitly nominalist assumptions on ordering, using the idea of sequence instead, as found in Peirce. Arnold attached the paper to an off-list note which included these comments: Your mail discussing logica docens and logica utens in the classification of the sciences rang a bell for me [. . .] Earlier this year I completed a longish report on the problem of research policy in occupational health and safety in mining, in which, amongst other topics, I considered the role of the docens-utens classification in the process of evaluating research proposals in this field. Given that you have brought the subject up, but not anticipating any general interest on the list in my going-on about committees and research (about which Winston Churchill had some rather acerbic opinions, BTW), I thought I'd send you a PDF of the report just for something to read over the mid-semester break. . . . I left out the second Appendix because that's available in the Intelex CP (it's CSP's Note on the Economy of Research). In another email earlier this year Arnold wrote that he wanted "to rewrite the report to take greater account of the Impossibility Tradition in economics (Kenneth Arrow, Amartya K Sen, and others), with a view to exploring ways that the logic of relations in this tradition might benefit from an explicitly Peircean reworking of the topic" Do you know if a completed version of the paper Arnold was working on is available, John? If so, would it be possible to make it available (perhaps Joe Ransdell could put it on Arisbe)? Yet, even if a version of the paper Arnold was working on is not available, the report itself contains at least the seeds of this new line of research. For example, the "Executive Summary" includes this comment. [AS] We adapt elements of Peirce's (CP 7.130-157) economy of research, so as to infer some of the criteria upon which the potential for research projects into a culture of safety can be assessed when researchers apply for funding. The theory's main point is that there is in the field of research in general, a ratio between research expenditure and the increase in knowledge that can be graphed in a manner comparable to the supply and demand curves of classical economics (Peirce, CP 7.147) Because of the very specific nature and purpose of the report produced for the Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee, and because Arnold's inquiry had progressed considerably further than when it was written, the later paper would certainly be preferable for getting at the direction of Arnold's recent research. However, that "Safety and the Logic of Hazard" is deeply informed by Peirce's work and was to some extent inspired by members of the list is clear from the "Acknowledgements" page of the paper which, besides including a special acknowledgment to "Professor Emeritus Joseph M. Ransdell", includes this general acknowledgment. [AS] The many contributors to the Peirce-l online discussion forum who have drawn my attention to aspects of the theories used in this paper, are too many to acknowledge individually. It goes without saying that my use of their contributions, and those of the named individuals and instiutions, is solely my own responsibility. Again, I am deeply saddened at the loss of this fine man and most ethical of Peirce-inspired scholars. Gary Richmond PS I have sent the PDF file of "Safety and the Logic of Hazard" to Joe Ransdell requesting that it be added to Arisbe along with the two papers by Arnold now there. John Collier wrote: All, I have not been subscribed to the Peirce-L list since my university changed my email address to fit its corporate image. I was getting reports regularly from my student Arnold Shepperson. I regret to inform you that Arnold died yesterday of a heart attack. It was a shock to me, since I saw him shortly before his death, and he seemed fine, and very enthusiastic. It is a loss to me personally, but also, I think, to the wider world. Arnold was well on his way to giving a Peircean response to Arrow's paradox of social choice by rejecting Arrow's explicitly nominalist assumptions on ordering, using the idea of sequence instead, as found in Peirce. My best to everyone. John -- Professor John Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html --- Message from
[peirce-l] Re: What fundamental psychological laws is Peirce referring to?
Gary: This is not the venue for debating the similarities and contrasts between traditional Occident and Orient. I'll respond as briefly as I can, and we can proceed through personal e-mails if you like. First, an agreement: if you abstract all particularity--an example would be Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy--then, yes, most of the world's religious world views look somewhat alike. They all encourage us to get our egos out of the way to serve the Absolute, whether God or Brahma. But I suggest when you get down into the trenches, into the details where the devil lurks, the differences do matter. If you really believe that the deepest currents of culture in East and West differ mostly in accidental respects such as terminology, and it behooves us to see through the differences, in spite of all that has been written to the contrary by both eastern and western scholars, I doubt that anything I say will change your view. To deny what I said of the Bhagavad Gita, you have to deny what is written there. I've seen Ghandi's commentary, and whether he liked the Gita or not is irrelevant. He, in fact, treated the Mahabharata War as allegorical. But would he assert that the principle of selfless action as illustrated is wrong? If a real Arjuna argued with a real Krishna that killing all those people was unthinkably wrong, should he go with his ego rather than with god-defined dharma? Even as allegory, my point remains: Arjuna was not the author of the deaths of his kinsmen and others on the battle field, and had no responsibility for his actions. There was no him or his. That is all maya, an illusion of ego. How can there be personal responsibility in selfless action? But Ghandi's life provides a good illustration of the difference between East and West. Imagine the difference in outcome of his passive resistance had he not been dealing with the British but with an Arjuna of his own religion. Was Ghandi deficient in conscience? If he had one, yes. Arjuna had a conscience, and that was his problem. Conscience is a western ego-thing. Dharma knows no conscience. I should add, I don't think religion defines a culture. Ego is a human phenomenon; after all, eastern wisdom literature wasn't aimed at westerners, but at its own people. Enlightenment is probably as rare in the East as saints are in the West. But as ideals, different religions make great cultural differences. One of the most persistent mistakes the West makes in foreign relations is the pigs is pigs fallacy: people are people. I don't think there are any easy moral equivalencies to be made between traditional East and West. Obviously as secularization and western-style industrialization of the East proceeds (rapidly), the differences shrink. In my own views, I'm probably more Taoist than anything else, and I certainly don't think western culture is the Way to go. On the other hand, I think it is the western view of the individual life as valuable and to be nurtured in self actualization rather than exploited by the state that has given rise to the idea of human/civil rights/liberties that was not present in the traditional Orient. Bill Gary F wrote, in part: Bill, list, I'm surprised to see this part of your message though: [[ One of the strong-holds of the unitive world-view you seem to prefer has been the traditional Orient, where life has historically been cheaper than dirt and mass exterminations of humans nearly routine. A modern example is Maoist purges and the rape and pillage of Tibet. Mao and Stalin each surpassed Hitler's atrocities. ]] So did the European invasion of what we now call the Americas. History does not at all bear out your suggestion that genocide is an oriental phenomenon or that life is cheaper on the other side of the world. [[ For the human to assume responsibility is an act of hubris. Isn't that the message of the Bhagavad Gita? So kill away, oh nobly born, and forget this conscience thing, an obvious lapse into ego. ]] No, that is not the message of the Bhagavad Gita. You might have a look at Gandhi's commentary on it -- Gandhi (1926), ed. John Strohmeier (2000), The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi (Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills). Gandhi acknowledged the Gita as the main inspiration for his life and work. Would you say that he was deficient in conscience? As i hinted in my previous message, i see a close parallel to Peirce's ideal of scientific method (or of the motivation for it) in the bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism, which is simply that one vows to work for universal enlightenment, not for private salvation or personal attainment of nirvana. The more i study them, the more i'm convinced that the deepest currents of culture in East and West differ mostly in accidental respects such as terminology, and it behooves us to see through the differences. However i don't cling to this thesis tenaciously ... if you can present evidence to the contrary,
[peirce-l] Death of Arnold Shepperson
John and Gary: As you suggested, Gary, I have made the paper by Arnold on safety and the logic of hazard -- which is an application of Peirce's economy of research -- available at ARISBE, on the page for Peirce-related papers. The URL for that is: http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/shepperson/safety.pdf I discovered, though, that the link for the paper he did with Tomaselli, on cinematic consciousness., does not work, apparently because it is on a page on the website for the Journal of South African and American Studies called Safundi that has restricted access: the link merely leads to the home page of that journal (which looks like an excellent journal, by the way). I wonder if John, or somebody who knows Keyan Tomaselli could find out about making that available without restriction somehow. I could mount a copy of it at ARISBE, for example, or it could appear on somebody else's website to which I am given a URL that I can use. Arnold also did a transcription of a Peirce MS which I have a copy of . I don't know what plans he had for that but I am sure he would like to make it generally available. I forget the number of the MS at the moment but I can find the transcription, I am sure, and will mount that on the web page for Peirce's own work after checking it over to see if it needs any tweaking. I will be pleased to post anything else which he did which anyone thinks he would like to see made generally available in this way. Joe Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: What fundamental psychological laws is Peirce referring to?
Bill and Gary, Bill Bailey wrote: This is not the venue for debating the similarities and contrasts between traditional Occident and Orient. However, Gary's comment that he sees a close parallel to Peirce's ideal of scientific method (or of the motivation for it) in the bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism suggests that there may indeed be reasons for continuing this discussion here. In any event, it has been a most interesting discussion so far with excellent points made by both of you. As it stands it feels to me to be something of a draw. So I hope you will both consider continuing your discussion here (you might try changing the Subject of the thread if you do). Gary R. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: What fundamental psychological laws is Peirce referring to?
Gary R. The bhodisattva relinquishes escape from the great wheel of death and birth and union with the Absolute to help others achieve enlightenment. Thus the bhodisattva is reborn again and again into the world of suffering with no reward except doing the work. About the only western equivalent I can think of is a Christian refusing at death to go to heaven so long as there lost souls in Hell, and going to Hell to save them. Such selflessness is probably beyond most westerners unless they become a Buddhist monk or priest, preferably at an early age. And if they became bhodisattvas, we'd never know; the existence of such persons is an article of faith. From what I've read, Peirce doesn't strike me as being of the bhodisattva temperament, but I'm a long way from making competent pronouncements about Peirce. I think the appropriate thing for the list is for Gary F to elaborate on the close parallels he finds between Peirce's ideal of scientific method and the bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism. As you point out, that is very much on topic. Bill Bailey Bill and Gary, Bill Bailey wrote: This is not the venue for debating the similarities and contrasts between traditional Occident and Orient. However, Gary's comment that he sees a close parallel to Peirce's ideal of scientific method (or of the motivation for it) in the bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism suggests that there may indeed be reasons for continuing this discussion here. In any event, it has been a most interesting discussion so far with excellent points made by both of you. As it stands it feels to me to be something of a draw. So I hope you will both consider continuing your discussion here (you might try changing the Subject of the thread if you do). Gary R. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date: 9/29/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Fw: Arnold Shepperson
Hi, Jim, I read at gmane about Arnold Shepperson's death. Would you do me a favor and tell peirce-l that I too am shocked and saddened by this. I've just re-read some off-list correspondence that I had with him back in February, and I'm not quite sure at the moment what either one of us was saying, but I have the impression, as I did at the time, a pleased impression that he was getting somewhere. Arnold was a genial and brilliant man with a future. Best, Ben --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
My characterization of Arnold's paper "Safety and the Logic of Hazard" is not adequate and, after going through it again -- very hurriedly but with a better focus of attention than the first time through -- I realized that both his title and my brief characterization of it as being an application of Peirce's Economy of Research hardly even begins to suggest what it is really about. In fact, I don't know how to describe it in such a way as to do justice to it, but I do want to say that I find the range of things he is concerned with in it astonishing and extraordinarily exciting and I will be reading it again and again at the pace which it deserves. There is, for example a several page overview of Peirce's career and his philosophy which is masterfully done, well worth reading for that alone, as can also be said about his account of some of the principles of Peirce's pioneering theory of economy of research. But what especially interested me is a remarkable and lengthy discussion of the history of various and sometimes competing and contradicting conceptions of culture, tradition, and custom that have flourished at one time and another in the discourse of social theorists of various sorts, this being presented within the contextual frame of Peirce's categories of Quality, Actuality, and Representation which Arnold provides. The paper as a whole is so rich conceptually, and done with such a light touch and magisterial skill, that I can't imagine that there would be anyone in this forum who would not find what Arnold is doing in this paper to be of unusual interest for one reason or another. I would be very much interested myself in other people's reactions to it. Here is the URL again: http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/shepperson/safety.pdf Joe Ransdell[EMAIL PROTECTED]- Original Message From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.eduSent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:29:14 PMSubject: [peirce-l] Death of Arnold SheppersonJohn and Gary: As you suggested, Gary, I have made the paper by Arnold on safety and the logic of hazard -- which is an application of Peirce's economy of research -- available at ARISBE, on the page for Peirce-related papers. The URL for that is:http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/shepperson/safety.pdf I discovered, though, that the link for the paper he did with Tomaselli, on cinematic consciousness., does not work, apparently because it is on a page on the website for the Journal of South African and American Studies called Safundi that has restricted access: the link merely leads to the home page of that journal (which looks like an excellent journal, by the way). I wonder if John, or somebody who knows Keyan Tomaselli could find out about making that available without restriction somehow. I could mount a copy of it at ARISBE, for example, or it could appear on somebody else's website to which I am given a URL that I can use.Arnold also did a transcription of a Peirce MS which I have a copy of . I don't know what plans he had for that but I am sure he would like to make it generally available. I forget the number of the MS at the moment but I can find the transcription, I am sure, and will mount that on the web page for Peirce's own work after checking it over to see if it needs any tweaking. I will be pleased to post anything else which he did which anyone thinks he would like to see made generally available in this way.Joe Ransdell[EMAIL PROTECTED]--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson
Thanks for mentioning this, Joe. You are absolutely right: I, first time around, didnt think Id find much of interest in a long paper on safety and hazard in South African mines. A closer, but not yet adequate look, overturned that superficial assessment: the Peirce summaries are great, and the scope of issues, covered at surprising depth, is impressive indeed. This is a keeper. -Original Message- From: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 8:06 PM To: Peirce Discussion Forum Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Death of Arnold Shepperson My characterization of Arnold's paper Safety and the Logic of Hazard is not adequate and, after going through it again -- very hurriedly but with a better focus of attention than the first time through -- I realized that both his title and my brief characterization of it as being an application of Peirce's Economy of Research hardly even begins to suggest what it is really about. In fact, I don't know how to describe it in such a way as to do justice to it, but I do want to say that I find the range of things he is concerned with in it astonishing and extraordinarily exciting and I will be reading it again and again at the pace which it deserves. There is, for example a several page overview of Peirce's career and his philosophy which is masterfully done, well worth reading for that alone, as can also be said about his account of some of the principles of Peirce's pioneering theory of economy of research. But what especially interested me is a remarkable and lengthy discussion of the history of various and sometimes competing and contradicting conceptions of culture, tradition, and custom that have flourished at one time and another in the discourse of social theorists of various sorts, this being presented within the contextual frame of Peirce's categories of Quality, Actuality, and Representation which Arnold provides. The paper as a whole is so rich conceptually, and done with such a light touch and magisterial skill, that I can't imagine that there would be anyone in this forum who would not find what Arnold is doing in this paper to be of unusual interest for one reason or another. I would be very much interested myself in other people's reactions to it. Here is the URL again: http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/shepperson/safety.pdf Joe Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:29:14 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Death of Arnold Shepperson John and Gary: As you suggested, Gary, I have made the paper by Arnold on safety and the logic of hazard -- which is an application of Peirce's economy of research -- available at ARISBE, on the page for Peirce-related papers. The URL for that is: http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/shepperson/safety.pdf I discovered, though, that the link for the paper he did with Tomaselli, on cinematic consciousness., does not work, apparently because it is on a page on the website for the Journal of South African and American Studies called Safundi that has restricted access: the link merely leads to the home page of that journal (which looks like an excellent journal, by the way). I wonder if John, or somebody who knows Keyan Tomaselli could find out about making that available without restriction somehow. I could mount a copy of it at ARISBE, for example, or it could appear on somebody else's website to which I am given a URL that I can use. Arnold also did a transcription of a Peirce MS which I have a copy of . I don't know what plans he had for that but I am sure he would like to make it generally available. I forget the number of the MS at the moment but I can find the transcription, I am sure, and will mount that on the web page for Peirce's own work after checking it over to see if it needs any tweaking. I will be pleased to post anything else which he did which anyone thinks he would like to see made generally available in this way. Joe Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
