Gary F, list
I disagree with you. I don't think that you have a right to assert
that 'all I ask of an interpreter of Peirce' is..... You and I are
equal - and this sentence of yours denies that equality and instead
inserts you as The Authority on How To Read and Understand Peirce.
Instead - this is simply how YOU choose to read Peirce. Others do not
choose this method. And you cannot claim that your method produces
'the correct Peirce'. It is simply YOUR method.
Your outline of how I read Peirce is quite incorrect. As I said - I
read Peirce in a holistic manner, which means - not 'free' as you
belittle the term - but that I read ALL of Peirce, and don't read
him as do you and a few [not all] others do - in a literary manner,
i.e., as if he were writing literature and you approach it as a
literary critique of all the years of his work, in a year by year,
essay by essay, text-based and linear manner.
Furthermore - you seem to be suggesting that the massive amount of
work [all those volumes are not bits and pieces] already available to
us - somehow doesn't tell the 'truth', the 'full story' about what
Peirce meant. I doubt that a few more essays/pages/articles can
really change the basic framework and thought of Peirce that is
already to be found in what we have available. Peirce was a very
thorough and consistent thinker - and his analysis is found already
in what we have available...
I choose a different approach to Peirce - and you have no right to
assert that your method is superior - No-one is asking you to change
your method of reading Peirce - and I'm not belittling you! I focus
only on the issue and never on the person.
Given this, all that I ask of you - is that you respect other
researchers in Peirce...rather than belittling them. You can - and
should - certainly disagree with their conclusions - but I consider
that you should focus your critique on the topic and points raised in
those conclusions - rather than belittling their person, their
intellect, their way of working...and suggesting that their way does
not lead to 'enlightenment' while your way does.
Edwina
On Wed 13/12/17 7:59 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Edwina,
All I ask of an interpreter of Peirce is that he or she read the
whole text, exactly as Peirce wrote it at the time and in the context
he was working in, and see for themselves what it means — realizing
that its implications for the reader might differ from the
implications of a previous (or subsequent) reading of the same text.
The alternative method (which you’ve called “holistic” and
I’ve called “free”) is to pick out a few phrases here and
there, rearrange them to suit one’s preconceived ideas, fill the
gaps with some phrases of your own invention, and defend that
“reading” against all others. Interpreters have a right to read
that way, of course; the trouble is that if you read a text that way,
it can never mean anything new to you, and thus can’t extend or
deepen your understanding of Peirce’s work as a whole.
I don’t object to people reading that way, or even posting such
readings to the list in opposition to others, but I can’t read or
post that way myself because I’m still learning from Peirce.
That’s why I keep coming back to Peirce texts that I’ve read
before, hoping to see what they mean that I didn’t see before, in
the light of other texts I’ve read in the meantime, such as the one
Jeff quoted in his post last night. I’m in no rush to arrive at a
Final Interpretation of Peirce, I just want to keep learning.
I am certainly learning from reading these Lowell lectures —
especially so because I never had a chance to read entire drafts of
them until the SPIN project made the manuscripts available online.
Reading a whole text as Peirce wrote it is what I would prefer to
call a holistic reading. Before this, I had to settle for the bits
and pieces selected by editors of the Collected Papers and scattered
around in its several volumes. The transcriptions of the Lowells that
I’ve put on my own website are my attempt to remedy that situation,
or at least improve on it, for those who don’t have the time or
inclination to read the manuscripts themselves.
Gary f.
http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm [1] }{ Peirce’s Lowell Lectures
of 1903
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: 12-Dec-17 21:26
Gary F, list
I guess we'll just continue to disagree.
I don't consider that I've given a 'very free translation' of
1.346-7 which sounds rather denigrating of my view. I wasn't
translating at all, but reading and understanding it. You read and
understand it differently. I'm certainly not going to say that YOU
provide a 'very free translation'. Instead - you offer a different
interpretation. OK?
Peirce himself says that 'genuine triadic relations can never be
built of dyadic relations'..and refers to a 'spot with one tail, a
spot with two tails'....[i.e., he does use the term 'spot'] and
writes: 'You may think that a node connecting three lines of identity
Y is not a triadic idea. But analysis will show that it is so". 1.346.
And that 'Y' which is in that sentence - is definitely that three
-spoked image. Further in that same section, as you also write, he
refers to the syllogistic triad .."There is a recognition of triadic
identity but it is only brought about as a conclusion from two
premises, which is itself a triadic relation". [Major premise, minor
premise, conclusion]. BUT - I consider that a syllogism is ONE Sign, a
semiosic triad. It is an Argument - and is made up of three Relations
in a mode of Thirdness. You would disagree.
So- I consider that Peirce was quite clear about the spoked image of
the semiosic triad.
Therefore - all that can be said is that you and I have a clear
disagreement on this issue. We can each present our views - and
that's that.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.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 .
