Franklin, list, No need whatsover to apologize; I just didn't want peirce-l to miss any of your thinking related to the matter at hand. And it's especially promising that you've begun the discussion of Chapter 10 so well, as both Jon and Ben have noted.
The "sent to" messages by Steven and Edwina had "Peirce" as one of the addresses sent to. This turns out to be an entirely different address, namely, Peircefamily, the list which Steven has created. This similarity could be and, momentarily was to me, confusing since both it and Peirce-l look the same in the "sent to" panel, only the "-l" distinguishing this list from his (at least in gmail). Anyhow, I'm delighted that you're leading this chapter discussion. Ben's response seems to be moving it in a very desirable direction, I think. I'm very much looking forward to its continuing. 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 5:14 PM, Franklin Ransom < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
