Dear list:
What I find comedic and tragic about this whole situation is that while claiming truth about interpreting Peirce, you continue to ignore the ground that is put in front of us. How many different ways are there of interpreting CP 5.189, the logic of abduction? There is your exactness and one for which a label of “normative form of abduction” has been placed by Peirce, himself. If this is not his strongest argument, then which? So, why not chirp with that? It serves at least to provide a ground for argument. If not this, then what is your ground? Substance, being, truth, one two three, object, subject, predicate, mind, icon, index, symbol, phenomenon…they are all there. Instead, it continues to be about desire to be proved correct and the discussion is left whimsical in personal experience. While his work is open to analysis and interpretation, it is also open to serve as a frame to truth. There is a correct way, one *ugly* enough to be safe from kidnappers. *SOCRATES: Why, because I asked you to **deliver virtue into my hands whole and unbroken, and I gave you a pattern according to which you were to frame your answer**; and you have forgotten already, and tell me that virtue is the power of attaining good justly, or with justice; and justice you acknowledge to be a part of virtue.* *SOCRATES: What of that! Why, did not I ask you to tell me the nature of virtue as a whole? And you are very far from telling me this; but declare every action to be virtue which is done with a part of virtue; as though you had told me and I must already know the whole of virtue, and this too when frittered away into little pieces. * ~Meno Best, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary, list: I disagree with you that Peirce was *exact* in his use of > terms, and frankly, his work is so complex that it is open to analysis and > interpretation. If it were not open to analysis and interpretation - then, > there would be no possibility of debate or discussion. We could simply > recite his texts, all agree to their singular meaning....and..walk away. > Nothing to interpret, nothing to analyze. Just agreement. > > But this is not the case. Peirce's own analysis evolved, developed and is > complex. We've seen this in the long and often quite argumentative debates > that have taken place on this list regarding, eg, the three modes of > thought, the meaning of various terms, etc. > > So - I don't know what you are suggesting as the proper mode of > 'interpretation and analysis of Peirce' on this list- When you suggest that > any different interpretation is, instead of being a different > interpretation - is instead a 'personal semeiotic theory'. I think that > such authoritarianism is not conducive to the study of Peirce. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* g...@gnusystems.ca > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:54 AM > *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > 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:tabor...@primus.ca] > *Sent:* 15-Sep-16 10:35 > *To:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *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 > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
