Edwina (and list),
I agree with your opinion that the focus of this list should be on the interpretation and analysis of Peirce and the use of his analytic framework for scientific or philosophical purposes. I think everyone in agreement with this should therefore refrain from presenting their beliefs about semiosis, or their personal semiotic theories, unless their relation to Peircean semiotics can be demonstrated by specific reference or citation to what Peirce actually wrote and the context in which he wrote it. When we are focussed on interpretation and analysis of a specific Peirce text (such as his “Neglected Argument” paper), the discussion should refer to (and preferably quote) specific parts or aspects of that text, along with any other Peirce texts relevant to the issue. Lacking such accurate and specific reference, any claim that a personal theory is an interpretation of Peirce represents nothing more than a personal belief and is outside the focus of this list. Interpretation of a writer as exact as Peirce in his use of terms requires close attention to his text in its context, not free improvisation on his themes within a context of one’s own design. Gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15-Sep-16 10:35 To: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Jon, list - you still don't seem to understand. My personal beliefs are completely irrelevant to my interpretation and analysis of Peirce. That is, my interpretations and analysis can be a completely accurate outline of Peircean thought - even if my own beliefs are different. [I am not saying that they are; I am only outlining an IF-THEN framework]. Therefore, there is no need for you to inquire about my personal beliefs - and no need for you to 'discuss other points where my beliefs are different from those of Peirce'. Who cares? What difference does it make? Just as I am not interested in your personal beliefs - for they should have no relevance to your ability to analyze and interpret Peirce - I would appreciate that you stop asking me to tell you where my beliefs agree with/do not agree with - those of Peirce. The focus should be on the interpretation and analysis of Peirce. And the use of his analytic framework in other areas - such as science. Not on whether or not we are, personally, iconic clones of his work. Edwina
----------------------------- 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 .
