Gary, list
I think that's a reasonable remedy - to suggest that readers simply delete
those posts in which they are not interested. I admit to doing that quite
often. My interests are in using Peirce within the analysis of biological
information processes and biological morphology - and - in the analysis of
societal morphologies [understanding societies as 'organisms']. I have no
expertise in philosophy and therefore, either superficially read those posts or
delete them.
Just a point; with regard to Gary's comment of the semeiotic triad being
understood as 'a single triadic entity' versus the triad as expressing three
relations'..my view is that the triad is a 'single triadic entity made up of
three relations [O-R; R-R; R-I]...And as a single triadic entity, it and its
relations are also in constant relation with other triads. So, a DI
relation[Dynamic Interpretant] in one triad will be at the same time acting as
the DO Relation [Dynamic Object] in interaction with another triad...and in
doing so, it brings along information from its 'home' Representamen. Constant
interaction. Nothing but triads/Signs.
As for myself and Jon A.S. - I think it's obvious we will never agree. Our
basic axioms and even focus, are too different. And I admit to being tired of
the interaction.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and
Particular//Singular/Individual
Stephen, John, List,
I know the frustration that one can occasionally feel in reading forum
messages and segments of thread exchanges which, for example, seem to be
rehearsing the same material, covering the same--or similar--territory,
especially on a topic in which one has little or no interest.
But I have discovered over the years that what may be of little or no
interest to some may be of considerable interest to some others.. For example,
in the present thread, the putative distinction between the semeiotic triad
seen as a single triadic entity versus the triad as expressing three relations
seems to me to one worth entertaining in considering what is really a
fundamental aspect of Peircean semeiotics. Of course one can't know in advance
if the distinction is valid, what the inquiry might conclude, etc.
Be that as it may, while it is at present doubtful whether Jon S. or Edwina
will ever satisfactorily resolve this or other such fundamental differences in
perspective (who knows? they may even have tired trying), I have personally
gained from their attempt to explain their very different positions to each
other, including my better understanding of their individual stances.
But returning to the question at hand, it seems to me perhaps fruitful to
approach it from the standpoint of how often to post to peirce-l (we have in
the past taken up such matters as what is appropriate to post to Peirce, how to
best deal with what one considers to be abusive in a discussion, etc.) When
shortly after Joe Ransdell, the creator of the Peirce e-forum along with the
Arisbe 'gateway' site, died at the end of 2010, I was asked by The Pierce Group
(led by Nathan Houser) to take on the role of moderator of peirce-l, Ben Udell
and I to co-manage the forum and the Arisbe site (most of you know that Ben is
also the webmaster of Arisbe).
While we were fairly familiar with what Joe had written on the peirce-l page
of Arisbe about the character and conduct of the forum, we both plunged into
studying it in order to understand it as fully as we could. For example, here
Joe comments on the length and number of posts:
No limitation is put upon the length or number of posts. Many are quite
short but some are extensively developed, and the policy is neither to
encourage or discourage on the basis of length: either stance seems to the
manager to be, in effect, a discouragement of the attempt to do or to further
philosophy in this public forum.
(TPG, Ben, and I, have from time to time suggested off-list that certain
individuals curtail posting an excessive number of messages when this has
occurred daily over a long period of time--but this has been extremely rare.)
I have made it a daily discipline to read all peirce-l posts when I am able
to (I ask Ben to watch the list closely when, as recently, I was traveling, and
even more recently, when I had surgery). But you, dear list member, are under
no obligation to do anything of the sort. Remembering that what you do not
like, or are not interested in, or that peeves you, may be producing a very
different reaction in another forum member, yet feel free to delete whatever
you please, a better approach, I think, than to be seen as potentially standing
in the way of inquiry.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:42 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/25/2017 10:28 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Sorry for the rant and if I am alone in my reaction...
You're not along in that reaction.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
