A feeling is what it is, positively, regardless of anything else. Its being is in it alone, and it is a mere potentiality. A brute force, as, for example, an existent particle, on the other hand, is nothing for itself; whatever it is, it is for what it is attracting and what it is repelling:

Helmut, List,

Is this an example of Peirce being abstract again? Because by "feeling" he often meant "tone" if I recall correctly. The problem I have (although I think it only exists with regard to this short extract as Peirce explains it better in detail) is that a "feeling" cannot easily be disregarded from that which embodies it. That is, the being -- or essence -- of "feeling" is not in feeling alone but also (and this is an anthropocentric point) requires the body (as conduit) which embodies the feeling as such.

I don't remember disagreeing with Peirce re "feeling" the last time I read through his texts at length so likely just a result of much context ommitted.

best

Jack

From: peirce-l-request@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-request@list.iupui.edu> on behalf of Helmut Raulien <H.Raulien@gmx.de>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 3:40 PM
To: sowa@bestweb.net <sowa@bestweb.net>
Cc: Peirce List <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>; CG <cg@lists.iccs-conference.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Aw: [PEIRCE-L] meaning

Warning

This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

John, Gary F., List,

first, here again the part of Gary´s Peirce quote, in which Peirce tells the three modes of being:

So, then, there are these three modes of being: first, the being of a feeling, in itself, unattached to any subject, which is merely an atmospheric possibility, a possibility floating in vacuo, not rational yet capable of rationalization; secondly, there is the being that consists in arbitrary brute action upon other things, not only irrational but anti-rational, since to rationalize it would be to destroy its being; and thirdly, there is living intelligence from which all reality and all power are derived; which is rational necessity and necessitation.

A feeling is what it is, positively, regardless of anything else. Its being is in it alone, and it is a mere potentiality. A brute force, as, for example, an existent particle, on the other hand, is nothing for itself; whatever it is, it is for what it is attracting and what it is repelling: its being is actual, consists in action, is dyadic. That is what I call existence. A reason has its being in bringing other things into connexion with each other; its essence is to compose: it is triadic, and it alone has a real power.

As I said, I not merely want to talk about reality, which is always meant universally, but also about false, but for a system viable, narratives. In this more general matter, not only talking about reality, but about pseudoreality as well, the third mode is not only the universal intelligible force, but also a system´s intentional force, creating false but viable narratives. I think, it is for all agreeable, that such things exist, and that it would be helpful to uncover them? Examples are galore.

Peirce says of the third mode, that its essence is composition. I think, before composition comes classification. A system can only compose its organs, if they first are classified and so specified. Example: The castes system in India, other feudal classification of people, and also classification of acts as good or bad. If classification of acts is in accord with the universal system (I think, the ten commandments mostly are), this is good at first glance, but if the system does not adress their origin as the universe´s nature, but as an act of its own, this is hijacking. Example: Liberal christians admit, that in Mahayana-Buddhism too similar values like compassion exist, but illiberal christians perhaps say, that good values only exist in the christian context, and since their prophets have declareded them.

Best Regards

Helmut

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2022 um 21:44 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
An: "Peirce List" <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
Cc: "CG" <cg@lists.iccs-conference.org>
Betreff: RE: [PEIRCE-L] meaning

Helmut, Gary F, List

The many complex issues in this thread would require a lengthy commentary. But I'll just make a few remarks on the word myth.

In classical Greek, the basic meaning of mythos is (1) word or speech; (2) public speech; (3) conversation; (4) thing said, fact, matter; (5) thing thought, unspoken word, purpose, design. (Liddell & Scott, 9th edition)

From those basic meanings, it came to be applied to tales, stories, and narratives. Since many of those stories contained a mixture of fact and fiction and sometimes more fiction than fact, critics such as Plato condemned them as false.

But the same criticism could be made of any scientific theories of any time past, present, or future. The goal of science is a deeper understanding of experience, but any theory is at best a good generalization of certain kinds of experience. And all scientific theories are eventually recognized as inadequate in one or more ways. Furthermore, many of the old myths still embody deep insights into human nature and experience -- many of them are still good guides for new scientific theories (abductions).

Summary: Science and myth represent insights (abductions) obtained through a deep analysis of experience. We should recognize them for what they contribute, but realize that they have limitations which may be clarified and extended by further analysis, and testing against new observations.

John

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ â–º PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . â–º To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to list@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . â–º PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

*Warning*

Warning