Sorry Ben, I disagree and sounds like an over reaction to Sung's comments. He isn't trying to emulate anything to a T anymore than you are trying to force discussions of Peirce into a technocracy. He is just pointing out something important about Peirce. Why over react? Sincerely, Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > *Sung, all, Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we > can't emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for > Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on > 'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged, > multi-post discussions of a given topic should clarify and thematize the > topic's relation to Peirce because that is what is promised to subscribers > and that is what most subscribers expect. That has been and will continue > to be the policy of peirce-l. Best, Ben Udell as co-manager, peirce-l.* > > > On 7/2/2015 5:42 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Bev, Gary, lists, > > I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study > of signs and "Peirce-related" is thus "sign-related", it seems to me. > Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS, > and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as > Peirce-related in one way or another, including linguistic texts, chemical > equations, mathematical formulas, network diagrams, pictures, and whatever > else that may emerge in the future as NEW means of communication and > representation through the Internet. > > In other words, for me, semiotics is not yet closed. Its future should > not be confined to studying MACRO-SEMIOTICS as constructed by Poinsot, > Peirce, and others but should be open to studying both MICRO-SEMIOTICS as > currently being developed in biosemiotics (.e.g., DNA as a molecular sign) > and what may be called 'COSMO-SEMIOTICS' as may be developed in the future > (e.g., viewing spiral galaxies as cosmological signs). Imagine what > fantastic syntheses in philosophy Pierce's genius might be accomplishing > now were he alive today ! > > All the best. > > Sung > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than >> restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more >> technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style. >> >> Bev >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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]>[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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
