Dear Edwina, Gary, list:
It would surprise me more if one did *not* get angry when truth about interpretation is at stake. Why do people get angry and fight about metaphors? One two three…*thumos, eros, logos*… Best, Jerry R On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary - first, to tell someone untruths about themselves is not a > responsible method of debate. As I said - I never said one word about my > 'principles of interpretation of Peirce' - and for you to suggest that I > did, and that these are different from ALL others - is indeed a put-down. > > Second, a graph IS a diagram. The common triangle, used in various texts > to refer to both Peircean semiosis and Saussurian semiology, is, in my > view, incorrect to use in Peircean semiosis. Instead, the Peircean triad > is, as he said 'a graph with three tails' - and as he shows in 1.347, these > connect with other triads. > > And no-one has said that the 'tail' itself represents the 'sign, object, > interpretant' .I agree - the 'spots *with* their tails' or nodal sites > with their interactions/relations - represent the Relations. Obviously a > 'tail' or Relation can't exist 'per se' but functions via the nodal sites! > > What puzzles me is why you are so angry about this! > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* [email protected] > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 3:23 PM > *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Theory of posting > > Edwina, as I said before, you’re free to interpret Peirce as you please, > and to read whatever you please into my posts, or Jon’s, or anyone else’s; > if you interpret something I said as an attempted “put-down,” that’s none > of my business. You’re welcome to all of your interpretations. As for me, I > feel free to ignore any questions or comments on this list that are based > *solely* on your interpretations or are not conducive to the further > development of Peircean thinking. > > > > It *might* be useful to somebody if I explain the difference between an > Existential Graph and a “graphic diagram of the semiosic triad.” The > latter I take to refer to any of the varieties of three-point or > three-spoke diagrams where the three points represent sign, object and > interpretant, often with the labels R, O and I respectively. An Existential > Graph of the kind illustrated in CP 1.347 is explained by Peirce in the > previous paragraph: > > [[ In existential graphs, a spot with one tail [—X] represents a quality, > a spot with two tails [—R—] a dyadic relation. Joining the ends of two > tails is also a dyadic relation. But you can never by such joining make a > graph with three tails. ]] A “spot” with three “tails” represents a triadic > relation, but the “tails” do not represent sign, object and interpretant. > The “tails” represent what Peirce calls the “blanks” in a rheme, or > predicate, and the number of tails makes it a monadic, dyadic, triadic, > tetradic, pentadic (etc.) rheme or rhema. When these “blanks” are filled > with *subjects*, represented in the graph by *lines of identity* > connected to the spots, they represent propositions. As Peirce says, the > *relations* (monadic, dyadic, triadic or what have you) are represented > by the *spots with their tails*, not by the “tails.” The “X” and “R” in > Peirce’s examples are not *relata* and the “tails” do not represent their > relation to something else. > > > > This is barely a beginning of an explanation of EGs, which were Peirce’s > main “diagrams of thought” from the late 1890s onward and fill many of his > manuscripts (and letters to Welby), but it should be enough to show how > they differ from the usual diagrams we see of the R-O-I or S-O-I triad. I > call these “the usual diagrams” rather than “Peirce’s diagram(s)” because > Peirce in fact never drew any such diagram, or at least never published > one, though he published lots of EGs. > > > > I don’t expect this will be of any use to you, Edwina, as it’s “just my > interpretation” as far as you’re concerned. But there may be others reading > this, and I hope it’s of some use to them, sketchy though it is. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 17-Sep-16 13:39 > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
