Gary ~ Thanks for your friendly welcome and invitation to introduce myself and my interests.
I am an economist (PhD) who's semi-retired, with a lot of time to read and think about interesting things. I first encountered Peirce by accident about six months ago, and like everyone was impressed by the breadth and depth of his accomplishments. I continue thinking about various perspectives on problem-solving, creativity and the advance of knowledge, so I have returned to Peirce on numerous occasions for insights. What I hope to learn here (and elsewhere) is how to better recognize/assign/manipulate the signs of relationships, in the hope of understanding more about the world. Most of the sciences (natural and social) are pretty deeply immersed in empirical research, attempting to identify and measure key mechanisms that animate activity in their respective disciplines. However, any larger understanding of existence must span all of those disciplines. Man and nature share the same physical space and interact continuously, so the optimizing mechanisms of each must equilibrate with respect to the others. Thus, the relevant signs (for which I search) will describe an "enveloping mechanism" that is too complex to be gauged statistically, and can only be understood as a logical construct. I haven't gone back to check the original quote, but Peirce said something about evolution providing the general model for nature's and man's existence. Accepting that as accurate (for the sake of the current argument), it implies that the pursuit of larger truths requires combining and jointly manipulating the signs/relationships of evolution for humans, animals, plants and other matter. If all obey the same (properly modeled) evolutionary pattern, then a comparatively small number of signs may be required to describe the sort of enveloping mechanism that I have in mind. This, it seems to me, is consistent with what I have recently (and briefly) read from Sebeok and others, who point out that semiotics characterizes the (implicit) logic of plants, animals and other elements of nature. However, I have not (yet) read of attempts to consider all of the various (natural and human) mechanisms simultaneously as parts of an organic, equilibrating whole. (If one exists, I would like to read it.) Finally, I am interested in the actual practice of problem-solving and creativity. Frankly, the mathematics of semiotics (or computational logic, etc.) strikes me as getting more attention than it deserves. It is more like diagraming a sentence than writing one, more like conducting an audit than running a company. Diagramming sentences is a clearly a useful exercise, but after the terms and relationships have become ingrained, then one writes "naturally" and only draws a diagram in unusual circumstances. For example, Shakespeare knew that the roles and relationships of his characters were consistent and told a believable story without waiting for a semiotic deconstruction of it; Sherlock Holmes performed better with Watson to check his logic (on the fly) than he ever did alone; and innovators have their logic checked and hypotheses tested by highly-compensated venture capitalists who employ teams of analysts to analyze proposals and investigate their potential. Philosophical analytics aside, "truth" is pronounced when the theater is packed, the criminal is behind bars, and the consumer adds something to his shopping cart at WalMart. Truth is whatever the problem-solver sets as his objective -- that which animates his logic. Since people have multiple objectives and many of them are emotional and/or unspoken, it would be a marvel (to me) if computational logic could be fruitfully applied in most real-world settings. Again, I don't disagree with the insights; I disagree that a gun designed to be fired from a fixed location will be used much by a person in motion. Instead, I believe the abduction-induction-deduction model has far more to recommend it as a theory of everyday problem-solving, creativity and research. I consider it "the" evolved model of nature, and believe it is memorialized in the physical structures of the brain (and central nervous system). If so, then the work of Peirce and other philosophers will be useful for interpreting the findings of modern brain researchers, and vice versa. ... And so on. New insights are always appreciated. Regards to all, Tom Wyrick (new member) > On Jul 3, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tom, > > Welcome to the list, and thanks for your interesting, somewhat cryptic, and > perhaps even challenging first post. > > Since of late I've been quoting Joe Ransdell from the PEIRCE-L page at Arisbe > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM I thought I'd take the > opportunity of your joining the forum to quote a snippet of his on the theme > of new members introducing themselves. > INTRODUCING YOURSELF TO THE FORUM > > Even if you have no substantive contribution to make—no question to raise, > etc.—to the list-group initially and perhaps plan only to observe, the other > members would appreciate it if you were to introduce yourself briefly, saying > anything you like about yourself that would give all of us some idea of what > your special interests in Peirce might be and what you might hope to gain > from participation in the discussion, even if only as an observer. This can > encourage others, who might only be waiting for a pretext to get into the > topic that especially interests you. Do this whenever you want to do it. > Don't wait for some especially appropriate time since there is none. > > > While I agree with the spirit of this note, I do not think that it is > absolutely necessary that any new member do this unless he or she feels > comfortable doing so, although it is undoubtedly true that at least some > "other members would appreciate it if you to introduce yourself briefly." > > So, if you've a mind to, please do introduce yourself to the list if and when > your feel the urge. > > Best, > > Gary > > > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > C 745 > 718 482-5690 > >> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Greetings ~ >> >> 1. Everyone uses signs, including us, the dog catcher and pre-verbal >> infants. >> 2. Peirce discussed the use of signs in everyday settings to illustrate >> semiotic principles. >> 3. Therefore anyone's use of signs could potentially be used by Peirce to >> illustrate semiotic principles. >> >> [#3 is more restrictive than "Peirce-related in one way or another." It >> does not imply that infants, dog catchers or others engage in semiotic >> analysis.] >> >> Regards, >> Tom Wyrick (new member) >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 3, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Edwina, >> >> I appreciate your careful analysis of my syllogism, but I disagree with your >> conclusion that my syllogism is >> >> " . . . a circular argument and thus fallacious, as a syllogism, it is >> invalid (070315-1) >> because of the logical error of the undistributed middle" >> >> The reason for my disagreeing with your conclusion is given below. >> >> >> You wrote: >> >> "The syllogistic fallacy that you make is: >> (070315-2) >> [ALL] X is y. >> [ALL] Z is y. >> Therefore [All] Z is X. >> >> The above is your format. It is invalid...because the 'middle term' of 'y' >> that connects the two (X and Z) is not distributed. . . . . " >> >> >> Syllogism (070315-2) is a misrepresentation of my original syllogism, >> (070315-3), which is stated more clearly as (070315-4): >> >> >> 1. We think, write, and speak in signs >> (070315-3) >> 2. Peirce's research was devoted to signs >> 3. Any topics about which we think, write, and speak are therefore are >> Peirce-related >> >> 1. We think/write/speak in signs >> (070315-4) >> 2. Signs are Peirce-related because he studied all kinds of signs >> 3. Therefore all our thoughts/writings/speeches are Peirce-related (in one >> way or another) >> >> You may not agree that (070315-3) and (070315-4) are equivalent (if you >> don't, I would like to know the reason why you think so), but that was the >> key point of my syllogism. >> >> My syllogism, (070315-4), is of the following format, which differs from >> your (070315-2): >> >> [ALL] X is y. >> >> (070315-5) >> [ALL] Y is z. >> Therefore [All] X is z. >> >> where X = our thoughts/writings/speeches >> y = signs >> z = the object of the scientific investigation by Peirce, and >> hence "Peirce-related" >> >> As you can see, (070315-5), does not involve any logical error, since the >> middle term is distributed in both premises. >> >> All the best. >> >> Sung >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sung, apart from being a circular argument and thus fallacious, as a >>> syllogism, it is invalid because of the logical error of the undistributed >>> middle. Look it up; I know that you don't understand syllogistic logic. >>> >>> The syllogistic fallacy that you make is: >>> [ALL] X is y. >>> [ALL] Z is y. >>> Therefore [All] Z is X. >>> >>> The above is your format. It is invalid...because the 'middle term' of 'y' >>> that connects the two (X and Z) is not distributed. Again - I'm not going >>> to explain syllogistic logic to you. >>> >>> An example would be: >>> ALL rabbits have fur. >>> ALL (or my) dog has fur. >>> Therefore my dog is a rabbit. >>> >>> That's the error you made. >>> >>> Edwina >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Sungchul Ji >>> To: PEIRCE-L >>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:53 PM >>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >>> >>> Edwina wrote: >>> >>> "Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and >>> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that >>> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and >>> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of >>> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness." >>> >>> I disagree with your conclusions above, since (i) I do not see any >>> logical fallacy in what I said in my previous post which is summarized >>> below nor (ii) did I say anything about the meaning of "sign". >>> >>> 1. We think, write, and speak in signs. >>> 2. Peirce's research was devoted to signs. >>> 3. Any topics about which we think, write, and speak are therefore are >>> Peirce-related. >>> >>> Perhaps my understanding of your criticisms is incomplete. If you think >>> so, I would appreciate your clarifications. >>> >>> All the best. >>> >>> Sung >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the list can be reduced to 'any and all >>>> topics'. It's a Peircean list. >>>> >>>> Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and >>>> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that >>>> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and >>>> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of >>>> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness. >>>> >>>> As for Stephen and his matriarchal/patriarchal claims, my view is that >>>> they are analytically incorrect; I consider that he has ignored the >>>> economic mode and societal infrastructure as primarily causal of both >>>> these modes of organization (matriarchy/patriarchy) - but, since these >>>> factors are neither Peircean nor even semiosic, then, I have no intention >>>> of getting into a debate on this list. >>>> >>>> But I do acknowledge Stephen Rose's post - for often, even when a post >>>> states that it is Peircean related - this relation may be as invalid as >>>> Sung's illogical claim above - or, as well, a few posters seem >>>> isolate-in-themselves, speaking only for and about their own focus. This >>>> can result in a monologue or a dialogue engaged in only by one other >>>> person. That's what the 'delete' button is for. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Benjamin Udell >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >>>> >>>> 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] 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 >>>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 . >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 . > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
