Gary, list, Sorry, I noticed that Steven and Edwina had not been posting to Peirce-L, so I thought I should leave that discussion in the biosemiotics list.
-- Franklin On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > I am taking the liberty of forwarding Frank's note to peirce-l which was, > I assume, inadvertently sent only to the biosemiotics list. I agree with > his principal point that it might be a good idea to return to the > discussion of Chapter 10 of NP. Certainly other topics can be given new > Subject lines. Best, Gary > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Franklin Ransom < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Steven, Edwina, list, >> >> I'm not entirely sure what the discussion between Steven and Edwina has >> to do with the content of the chapter that is the topic of the thread. >> Hoping this gets back to that somehow, I would like to say a couple of >> things. >> >> First, it is not only the ideas about mathematics drawing necessary >> conclusions and other sciences borrowing principles from mathematics that >> are at work here--it is important that the subject matter of mathematics >> has to do with hypotheses concerning forms of relations. Without that idea, >> the other ideas could not deliver the results that Frederik discusses for >> the significance of diagrams for mathematics and epistemology. >> >> Second, of course Charles Peirce did not originate every idea of which he >> made use. Just about the thing I love most about him and his work is the >> way he works to carry forward the work of others, in the genuine spirit of >> community of inquiry. And I don't see why, because Benjamin Peirce >> developed certain ideas, that this somehow lessens what is at stake in Ch. >> 10 of NP. Are we supposed to judge of the merit of an idea based upon the >> character of the person who first introduced it? I admit that in certain >> limited situations, this may be true, but I don't see that in this context, >> a context which is guided by an interest in scientific inquiry. >> >> Which brings me to my third point: Even if we give due credit to Benjamin >> Peirce, how does that affect the argument that is up for discussion in the >> chapter? Is this really just about saying that Frederik should have said >> that Charles got a couple of those ideas from his father? Frederik already >> made a point of mentioning that mathematics as the science of drawing >> necessary conclusions comes from Benjamin. >> >> So, why are we talking about this here? >> >> -- Franklin >> >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> You are missing the point of 'la longue duree' - with your changing it >>> to a long-term Result. You are reducing complex causality to a singular >>> linear 'what comes after some individual comes up with a new idea'..and are >>> describing individuals who advocate, copy, echo. That's not what 'la >>> longue duree' is about nor is it what I am talking about...that 'community >>> of scholars' that develops knowledge. >>> >>> Your insistence that Benjamin Peirce originated an idea and that Charles >>> Peirce merely copied it - and your question of - so what is new' about what >>> Peirce said - fits in with your answer, that one individual comes up with >>> the idea and others simply copy it. That's not what I'm talking about. >>> >>> I'm talking about the development of knowledge. You claim that it's all >>> based on 'individuals' - which I call The Great Man theory. I reject that >>> and claim that knowledge and its development is based within a >>> community-of-knowledge, with individuals in that community working within a >>> societal complex (population, economic mode, societal beliefs, technology, >>> power-politics etc)..and these individuals as a network develop new >>> knowledge. One individual may articulate that new knowledge but it never >>> appears unattached to the deeper community-of-knowledge and the societal >>> complex. >>> >>> I suggest we stop this interaction, as we each have our point of view, >>> and each of us remains unconvinced by the arguments of the other. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Biosemiotics <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* The Peirce Family List <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2015 3:18 PM >>> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8346] Re: Natural Propositions, Ch. 10: >>> Corollarial and Theorematic Experiments with Diagrams >>> >>> >>> On Apr 19, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 'la longue duree' >>> >>> >>> >>> In terms of this idea “La Longue Duree." Each individual may contribute >>> to the momentum of new ideas by apprehending the idea and advocating it. >>> There is certainly causal power in advocacy and echoing. But this does not >>> diminish the particular role of the individual in those ideas and their >>> development. >>> >>> Think about the development of ideas around communism. Trotsky, Lenin >>> and Stalin, et al. >>> >>> To argue that these ideas were not the result of the causal effects of >>> individuals suggests a disembodied power to ideas that is simply absent. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steven >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Los Gatos, California. +1-650-308-8611 >>> http://iase.info >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
