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 <tabor...@primus.ca> 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:* g...@gnusystems.ca
> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *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:tabor...@primus.ca]
> *Sent:* 17-Sep-16 13:39
> *To:* g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *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
> 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 .




Reply via email to