Jon, It intends to mean saving the appearances, but appearances, according to many pragmatists (C.I. Lewis, Quine, Sellars, probably Peirce) are ineffable, to use Lewis's term. We (Konrad and I) went to distinctions because there is no need to eff them. In order to save them. The current discussion about the nature of percepts and their distinction from perceptual judgements is relevant here. There is nothing in appearances alone that makes the distinction, since any qualisign must be interpreted to be a sign, implying a judgement. We can separate the two abstractly, however, and with distinctions, their quality implies their existence directly. Even with the mentioned self/non-self distinction (basic to using the Pragmatic Maxim) there is a necessary abduction involved to the self and non-self classes. But in the case of distinctions alone we have experiences that imply both existence (secondness ) and interpretation (thirdness) as either "this" or "that".
John John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, 13 December 2015 19:21 > To: John Collier; Matt Faunce; [email protected] 1 > Subject: Re: signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > John, List, > > I have personally always understood “saving the phenomena” to mean > preserving the appearances, that is, whatever explanation we come up with > must leave the appearances invariant. > > I remember reading somewhere that the Greek “sozein” could mean either > save or solve. I thought it was Ian Hacking but not sure. > Poking around the web for it did turn up this historical comment: > > https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/%CF%83%E1%BF%B4%CE%B6%C > E%B5%CE%B9%CE%BD-%CF%84%E1%BD%B0- > %CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B > 1-sozein-ta-phainomena/ > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 12/13/2015 5:28 AM, John Collier wrote: > > Peirce List, > > > > Here is a link to a Peirce influenced paper that makes the basic point Matt > has made here. It is based on work in my PhD dissertation that I am in the > process of redoing 30-some years later to deal with problems of continuity of > knowledge through radical theory change (and across different discourses > and cultures, for that matter). There was some brief attention to that work at > the time, but I was already working with biologists on an information > dynamics approach to self-organization in evolution, and I set it aside. My > co- > author on the paper is a former student of mine who is one of the few to > maintain and interest in the issues, though he is making his name more in the > cognitive science of religion and superstition these days. > > > > * Saving the distinctions: Distinctions as the epistemologically > > significant content of > experience<http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~ktalmont/pdf/Save%20distinctions > .pdf> (2004, with Konrad Talmont-Kaminski) The title is a sideways reference > to “saving the phenomena” as used by Bas van Fraassen, who seems to have > got it from Duhem. > > > > John Collier > > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: > http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 .
