Gary F- please don't attempt to 'put me down'. I've never said one word about 'the principles which guide my interpretation of Peirce'. [I notice you refer to my 'interpretation of Peirce' in quotes'. Why?]. Nor have I ever said a word or explained 'my practice' of interpreting Peirce in any way. I interpret him exactly as anyone else would - and as you do - with the capacity to read, to reason, to analyze. Are you going to deny me such attributes?
Of course I interpret Peircean semiosis such that I conclude that no triad, i.e., a Sign, is ever isolate. Such a claim is all through his work, when he comments on how Signs connect and become other Signs..... Your declaration that 'anyone' who looks at the diagram can see that it is NOT a diagram - is your interpretation - and quite insulting that you assertively declare that 'anyone', i.e., ALL people must see it the way YOU see it. Who made you the Authority? You are, like me, someone who reads and interprets Peirce - and I assure you, I have no intention of belittling your interpretations as based on non-Peircean criteria or marginal-to-the-Peircean-world. . I see it as a diagram of the triad - and yes, the 'tails' or Relations can thus connect - as he specifically says, "any greater number of correlates is nothing but a compound of triadic relations'. Kindly tell me the vital difference between a 'graph' and a 'diagram'. AND - kindly tell me the functionality of such connections between tails and the functionality of such 'compounds of triadic relations'. Well? Apart from quoting the text - what does it mean to you? What it means to me - is that dynamic connection of triads. It is YOU who declare that my interpretation of Peirce is ungrounded in his work. I've no idea what 'principles of interpretation' you claim that I use; I've never said a word about them. BUT - where do you get the conclusion that I say that MY interpretation is right? I've been arguing with Jon for days about HIS assertion that HIS interpretations are right - and I've been declaring that none of us has that right. All we can say is that 'we interpret the text in such and such a way'. You can agree or disagree - but Not One of US has the right - as you, now, and Jon, seem to claim, that ONE of them is right. As for reaching a consensus - this small community is hardly broad enough to make such a claim - and the paucity of participants ensures that no consensus is reached. I've had probably as many years of close attention to Peirce's texts as you have - over 40 - and i don't agree that Peirce was 'exact' in his use of terms; he developed and evolved his terms. What name-calling? Would you consider that your telling me that I have explained my principles of interpretation [which I haven't] or that i don't pay close attention to his text - is 'name-calling'? Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: g...@gnusystems.ca To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 12:57 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Edwina, I think we should thank you for being so honest about the principles which guide your “interpretation of Peirce.” You’ve explained why your practice of interpreting Peirce does not require that “close attention to his text in its context” which I stated to be my criterion. But it’s long been evident from your practice that your criteria are quite different. For instance, yesterday you wrote that “The graphic diagram of the semiosic triad [1.347] shows that the triad can never be an isolate but is networked with other triads. Therefore, within Peircean semiosis, - everything is interconnected and dynamic.” But anyone who actually looks at the diagram in its context (CP 1.343-49) can see that it is NOT a “diagram of the semiosic triad,” but a pair of existential graphs; and what the diagram illustrates is “that while a graph with three tails cannot be made out of graphs each with two or one tail, yet combinations of graphs of three tails each will suffice to build graphs with every higher number of tails.” The context is a version of Peirce’s so-called “Reduction Thesis.” But you feel free to “interpret” this text, with its diagram, as an argument that “within Peircean semiosis, - everything is interconnected and dynamic.” Now you have explicitly acknowledged the principles which justify such an “interpretation of Peirce” — which is, by those principles, irrefutable. It simply is your “interpretation of Peirce” because you say it is, and any difference or lack of connection between your “interpretation” and what Peirce actually said is quite irrelevant, as for you there are no “limits of interpretation” (Eco 1990), no grounds for argument that one “interpretation” is more accurate than another. Moreover, by your principles, any attempt to reach a consensus on what Peirce means is misguided, as that would leave open “no possibility of debate or discussion.” Perhaps, for the sake of contrast, I should clarify own my own hermeneutic principles. My claim that Peirce was “exact in his use of terms” is of course comparative, not absolute, and is based on many years of close attention to Peirce’s texts. But the principle here is a common-sense one that, for me, applies to any writer from whom I hope to learn something new: I assume that he means exactly what he says and says exactly what he means, until I have sufficient reason to abandon that working assumption. In Peirce’s case, this means assuming that he is innocent until proven guilty of violating his Ethics of Terminology. I have of course come across instances where a lack of exactitude, or an outright “slip of the pen,” is made obvious by the context, or where he says something that appears inconsistent with what he said in another context. But still I read Peirce in the hope that by doing so I’ll learn something new, or at least notice something that I wasn’t previously aware of. Accordingly, I read on the working assumption that he means what he says, and says what he means. If I read on the assumption that he means what I say, or says what I mean — or skim through a text looking for bits that I can conveniently lift out of their own context and insert into my own prior “interpretation” — I’m not likely to find any challenges to my already-fixed beliefs in that text. In short, Edwina, you have your beliefs and your “interpretation of Peirce” and you are welcome to them. You are also free to interpret other posters on the list according to your own inclinations, as you generally do, rather than giving close attention to what they actually say. (I think we can do without the name-calling, though.) We should also thank you for occasionally citing actual Peirce texts in a way that some list readers find useful. I just hope, for the sake of Peirceanity, that they pay more attention to the texts in their own contexts than to your “interpretations” of them. Gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 15-Sep-16 13:57 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
