Ben, Bev, list, I agree with Ben. Indeed, this notion of Sung's that 'all' of Peirce's work is in semiotic, would tend to narrow discussion parameters since it fails to consider the many other sciences (and other disciplines) Peirce explored and to which he contributed. Logic as semiotic--and its development in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, for example, as biosemiotics--as tremendously important as I believe it is, is not the whole of Peirce's scientific philosophy by a long shot.
As for Bev's concern about 'technocracy', I don't think it really applies. The forum was conceived by Joe as a very democratic place. Bev, you might take a look at Ben and my article which emphasizes this point in the special *Transactions* edition on Ransdell (and PEIRCE-L and Arisbe) which I co-edited with Cathy Legg last year. For now I'll just conclude with another of Joe's comments on the PEIRCE-L page at Arisbe. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE FORUM ------------------------------ The list was established in August 1993, and numbers around 300 or so members at present. It includes people from at least 35 to 40 different nations and from a remarkable range of disciplines and fields of interest and competence, and is not limited to those with academic posts or connections: a substantial number of its participants have no vocational connection with academia at all. I have posted more than enough for the day, but will add that I fully concur with Edwina in all the points she made in her most recent post. 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* On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > *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]> 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]> >> [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 >> >> 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 .
