*Bev, well, yes, Sung barely emulates Peirce at all, but he wants us to
do so in certain convenient ways.
It really isn't complicated. PEIRCE-L is for discussion of
Peirce-related topics - _/particularly/_ Peirce-related topics, such
that the relation is thematized. If people want a total free-for-all,
find somewhere else for it. This is peirce-l, not everything-l.
Best, Ben*
On 7/2/2015 6:27 PM, Bev Corwin wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
--
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 <tel:732-445-4701>
www.conformon.net <http://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 .
