BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List
Thank you - A really excellent letter - Sets us all up for the New
Year.
First - I concur with the caution about Morris, who provided in my
view, a simple mechanical outline of metaphoric signification. Rather
similar to the Saussurian frame where 'this' stands for 'that'.
Nothing at all to do with the Peircean analysis which is, as Gary R
points out, a dynamic perspective about the evolution of
consciousness....or, as I'd prefer...the evolution of Mind [for Mind
is not always 'conscious'.].
I consider that the Sign [capital S] is an irreducible triad and
thus, confining its definition to ONE relation, that between the
Representamen and the Dynamic Object - which can be termed: Iconic;
Indexical; Symbolic....misses the vital other actions of the triad;
namely, that of the Representamen [qualisign, sinsign, legisign] and
the actions between the Representamen and the Interpretant [ rheme,
dicent, argument]. The Peircean Sign cannot be reduced to any of its
so-called 'parts'.
This triad is the infrastructure of an existential morphology, which
means that one can examine semiosis within the biological and
physico-chemical realm and not simply in the conceptual realm. So, a
cell IS a Sign [capital S] in itself, operating within that triad as
a morphological entity, interacting with other cells [Signs] - each
as an agential expression of Mind.
That's where, I think, the pragmaticism of Peirce becomes vital -
for it can show how these morphological entities network with, inform
each other, communicate with each other - and how each affects the
other. We are now acknowledging that plants communicate with other
plants; we acknowledge how each evolves with and adapts to the other.
Mind is not static.....The same thing can be seen in the larger
morphologies such as societies, which are huge populations operating
as massive organisms.
So- even though many on this list are not involved in these areas, I
hope that in the New Year, we can consider some aspects of them.
All the best for the New Year
Edwina Taborsky
On Sat 30/12/17 10:02 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Peter, Jeff, list,
Peter, I too found the various viewpoints expressed in this thread
interesting and, taken as a whole, valuable in ways which may go
beyond your initial question. In any case, the discussion certainly
in no way disappointed me either.
By the way, Peter, I do not believe that I am alone in suggesting
that Morris' "pragmatics" rather fully distorts Peirce's pragmatism
and has led to considerable misunderstanding as to what Peirce's
views actually were. Continuing, Jeff wrote:
JD: Peirce provides the resources needed for understanding how a
contemporary Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. might be
able to engage in fruitful conversation about the nativity scene with
the aim of seeking to better understand their differing experiences
and perspectives on the world.
I agree, and would be interested in what other Peircean resources,
along with the ones you just pointed to (or at least hinted at) you
and others might imagine contributing to efforts towards bridging the
communication gap currently prominent not only in religion, art and
literary criticism, but in many other fields as well.
One resource which I believe might be productively mined and
developed in consideration of this pursuit of increased intra- and
inter-disciplinary communication is succinctly adumbrated in the
quote in my last post.
Methodeutic or philosophical rhetoric . . . studies the principles
that relate signs to each other and to the world:
If Peircean philosophical rhetoric (which includes not only
pragmatism, but what some have seen as the basis for a complete
theory of inquiry) can indeed better show how "signs relate to each
other and to the world," it might be the quintessential branch of
logic as semeiotic possibly contributing means for improving
inter-disciplinary communication and communication generally. For as
Peirce continues:
"[Philosophical rhetoric's] task is to ascertain the laws by
which in every scientific intelligence one sign gives birth to
another, and especially one thought brings forth another" (CP 2.229).
Peirce explains that by "scientific intelligence" he means "one
capable of learning." Better understanding this branch of semeiotics
having the potential for contributing to "the growth of learning"
through, especially as you wrote, Jeff, "fruitful conversation. . .
with the aim of seeking to better understand. . . differing
experience" might prove to be invaluable in this pursuit of
improving communication.
And, again, since Peirce defines a "scientific intelligence" as one
"capable of learning," and since as biosemiotics and related fields
have made amply clear, biological organisms, being most certainly
"capable of learning," then work in those fields (including complex
adaptive systems as well as such fields as social systems research,
etc.) might all contribute to this great goal of improving
communication, perhaps contributing to (dare I say?) what Peirce
called the last 'field' where evolution is still active, namely the
evolution of consciousness.
Ah, well, no doubt an all too ambitious goal (most certainly for
this list to take up alone!), but in no way a utopian one, at least
not in my view. In any event, and towards the new year, to paraphrase
Robert Browning, our human reach should exceed our grasp.
Best,
Gary R
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Peter, Gary R., List,
What might a semiotic theory contribute that goes beyond a
contemporary literary analysis? Not having 20 pages to dig into
details, here are some ideas that jump to the fore when I reflect on
Peirce's account of signs and how they grow--focusing first on
points from the speculative grammar and then moving towards the
methodeutic.
Consider what is involved in the interpretation of three different
kinds of signs that are expressed in the nativity scene:
1. iconic signs--including the various qualisigns-- and their
attendant feelings and emotions.
2. indexical signs--including the dicisigns one might express--and
the challenges different interpreters face in trying to ensure that
they are talking about the same sorts of objects when they refer,
for instance, to the individual figures in the scene.
3. symbolic legisigns--including the manifold arguments that the
nativity scene might be taken to express by the creators or by those
viewing the scene--raises issues about what is needed for different
interpreters to evaluate those arguments as good or bad.
One point a Peircean semiotic theory might contribute to an
intellectual discussion of nativity scenes is a clearer and richer
account of what is necessary for the various kinds of signs to be
communicated in a meaningful way. Many of those who are working in
literary criticism and art criticism today hold assumptions that are
outright skeptical of our ability to understand one another. Peirce
provides the resources needed for understanding how a contemporary
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. might be able to
engage in fruitful conversation about the nativity scene with the aim
of seeking to better understand their differing experiences and
perspectives on the world.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354 [2]
-------------------------
From: Skagestad, Peter
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 6:12:01 PM
To: Peirce-L; Gary Richmond
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes
Gary, list,
Yes, I also thought the aspect of Peirce’s semiotics that might be
helpful was precisely his methodeutic or rhetoric - corresponding, I
believe, to what today, following Charles Morris, is generally
referred to as pragmatics. And that was indeed the drift of Eugene
Halton’s suggestions, in particular. However much it might help my
sister – somewhat, I think – I think it has been a valuable
discussion, with a number of interesting viewpoints represented. I
certainly have not found the discussion disappointing, and I want to
thank all who have contributed.
Best,
Peter
-------------------------
From: Gary Richmond
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:49:25 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes List,
Well, whether or not much of this discussion has been very helpful
to Peter's sister, there has certainly been considerable interest in
continuing it. While beyond the topic at hand, I think a
meta-analysis of the discussion might prove valuable on other levels
than the semiotic one of the nativity scene (of which more a little
later).
But even at the semiotic level it is perhaps helpful to recall that
for Peirce semeiotics is a much broader study than theoretical grammar
and critical logic (the later being what we normally think of as
logic, "logic as logic" in Peirce's phrase). It is completed by a
third branch:
Methodeutic or philosophical rhetoric . . . studies the
principles that relate signs to each other and to the world: "Its
task is to ascertain the laws by which in every scientific
intelligence one sign gives birth to another, and especially one
thought brings forth another" (CP 2.229).
An important facet of Peirce's rhetoric is, of course, his
pragmatism involving, among other things, a theory of learning.
Perhaps had Peter stated his question in terms of what Peirce's
pragmatism might have to offer to an analysis of the nativity scene,
his sister might have gotten more useful material for her
investigation (I thought Gene's analysis attempted to do this in
part, but not everyone agreed). Meanwhile, it would appear that she
did not get nothing.
But returning to the possible meta-analysis of the content, I would
like to throw out a few possibly provocative comments.
It seems to me that Peirce's semiotic, when taken in its fullest
sense as including all three of its branches including rhetoric, has
in fact contributed a great deal to the understanding of many issues
and problems of our modern world and even a brief survey of the
literature of just this new century will show that to be the case. Is
that really in doubt?
As to the question of what this list "owes" Peter's sister or, for
that matter, anyone, I would answer simply, "nothing whatsoever." If
it can or does offer something of value to participants and others,
well that is all to the good. Certainly in the present discussion
there has been at least the good faith attempt to respond to Peter's
question. But there is no requirement that list members do anything
more than discuss Peirce and Peirce-related concepts as best they can
given all manner of constraints (of time, interest, direction of their
own intellectual pursuits, etc.)
As to the notion that there's some problem with this forum perhaps
being too "philosophical," one needs to keep in mind that the three
branches of logic as semeiotic are included in Peirce's cenoscopic
philosophy. And while he probably contributed the lion's share of his
intellectual efforts to logical pursuits, that not only is pragmatism
an important facet of semeiotic and cenosocpic philosophy, but that
cenoscopy also famously includes phenomenology, theoretical
esthetics and ethics, and metaphysics, and that Peirce contributed to
all of these philosophical sciences, more to some than to others. (I
won't comment here on his extensive and original work in parts of
mathematics and certain special sciences as well as the
classification of the sciences included in review science, but his
philosophical work constitutes, I think it's safe to say, the largest
part of it).
So, one gives and gets from this small forum (under 400 members)
what he/she can. And the occasional complaint that the forum be other
than it is seems to me to be empty. Still, from my couple of decades
on it, I have seen more positive assessment of what goes on here
than negative, and while I have been frustrated at times, I have
learned a great deal here over the years (and many have said the same
thing on and off-list).
I consider this to be a kind of intellectual home (Arisbe?) where I
can hang whatever philosophical 'hat; I care to as long as I'm
respectful of others views (and when I've lapsed in this for some
reason--for example, I'm dealing now with the double whammy of
having just had a major flood of my entire apartment at the same time
as I'm suffering from a bad case of bronchitis--I have made a point of
apologizing.)
So, I apologize in advance if I seem to be complaining about
certain recent perceived 'complaints' about the list (or, at least,
the present discussion). Truthfully, what I most want to say, perhaps
as a possible motto for the new year, is something Tom Peters,
business guru, once wrote: "Celebrate what you want to see more of."
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718
482-5690 [5]
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
John S., List.
Thank you for sending the link to "Signs, Processes, and Language
Games: Foundations for Ontology." After a first look, I've found it
quite helpful and inspiring on a number of fronts.
I, too, agree with your suggestions about the five kinds of
studies that are important for understanding Peirce's writings and
their implications. Having said that, I'd add two more to the list:
1. Analyze the development of his thought by relating his many
publications and his many more unpublished manuscripts.
2. Relate his writings to his sources in various fields from the
ancient Greeks to the latest developments of his day.
3. Analyze the effects of his work on his contemporaries and
successors.
4. Analyze developments in the 20th and 21st centuries that could
have been improved if the developers had studied Peirce.
5. Compare Peirce's methods for analyzing the world and how we talk
and act in and about it to the methods used by other philosophers,
past and present.
6. Put pragmaticist methods resulting philosophical framework to
work addressing the philosophical questions--both perennial and
those of our day--including, especially, questions that are often
ignored by other contemporary movements in philosophy such as in the
different strands in the contemporary analytic and continental
thought. Where necessary, refine the methods for the sake of making
progress on the philosophical problems.
7. Draw on pragmaticist methods and the larger philosophical
framework for the sake of better informing and guiding the scientific
and cultural (i.e., including the political, legal, moral, religious,
artistic, etc.) inquiries of our day--including questions that often
are ignored by contemporary movements in science and culture. Where
necessary, refine the methods in order to make progress on the
scientific and cultural problems.
One might think (6) and (7) are not relevant to the tasks
involved in "understanding Peirce's writings and their implications,"
but I believe that we can only understand the methods, ideas and
their implications by putting them to work ourselves. In the essay
above, I see you engaging, in differing degrees, in all 7 of the
tasks--which is a rather ambitious thing to try to do in one essay.
Distinguishing between these goals andidentifying which are guiding
us in the various posts we make will, I think, help keep our
discussions on the Peirce-L on a productive track.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354 [7]
-------------------------
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 10:02:29 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [9]; John F Sowa
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes
John, list -
I agree with all that John has written. Certainly one could do a
Peircean semiotic analysis of a nativity scene but, as John noted, it
would take 20 pages and frankly, in my view, what would be the point -
other than to show that one could do it?
A basic socio-historical comparative analysis would, in my view,
reveal both the intent and the hoped-for result of the
refugee-nativity. That's far more enlightening than a deep semiosic
analysis.
Where Peirce could be used, and unfortunately, is little appreciated
on a list such as this which is more devoted to points 1 and 2 of
John's list, is within the biological and societal formative systems.
I think that the use of Peirce would be astonishingly productive in
this areas.
Edwina
On Sat 30/12/17 11:45 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net [10] sent:
Ben, Helmut, Peter, and Edwina,
Ben
> I have long been wondering why there is so little discussion
> of relating Peirce's concepts and methodologies to concrete
> examples, or other 20th and even 21st century thinkers.
I strongly with that criticism.
To understand Peirce's writings and their implications, five kinds
of studies are important:
1. Analyze the development of his thought by relating his many
publications and his many more unpublished manuscripts.
2. Relate his writings to his sources in various fields from the
ancient Greeks to the latest developments of his day.
3. Analyze the effects of his work on his contemporaries and
successors.
4. Analyze developments in the 20th and 21st centuries that could
have been improved if the developers had studied Peirce.
5. Compare Peirce's methods for analyzing the world and how we talk
and act in and about it to the methods used by other philosophers,
past and present.
Ben
> All [Peter] asked was the relevance of Peirce's semiotics to
> a presently existing symbolic representation.
Helmut
> whether the picture/diorama is insufficient of being analyzed with
> Peirce, or Peirce´s theory is insufficient, because it does not
> cover this example.
Peter
> I tend to agree with those who have opined that there is just not
> much to be said, from a Peircean point of view, about this
analogy.
I agree with Peter that a pre-theoretical literary analysis is
sufficient to determine the intentions of the people who designed
the scene and the implications they wanted to express. Peirce's
semiotic could carry the analysis to a deeper level. But that
would require a 20-pages of details, not a short email note.
Edwina
> I ... tend to run from many of the philosophical discussions that
> dominate this list. My focus is on biosemiotics and the societal
> system as a complex adaptive system - which does function within
> the Peircean triad.
I agree that examples from biosemiotics, societal systems,
and complex adaptive systems would be far more useful than
the nativity scene for understanding all five issues above.
Re philosophical discussions: My major interest in Peirce was
originally stimulated by and continues to be focused on points
3 to 5 above, but I also found that 1 and 2 are important for
understanding 3 to 5.
For some of those issues, see my article "Peirce's contributions
to the 21st century": http://jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf
Re logic: Before I discovered Peirce, I had learned 20th c
logic from the so-called "mainstream" of a Frege-Russell-Carnap-
Quine-Kripke-Montague perspective.
What led me to Peirce were the criticisms of that mainstream
by Whitehead, Wittgenstein, and linguists who recognized that
there is more to language than Montagovian "formal semantics".
I discuss that in http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf
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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [11] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [12] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce [13]-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 [14] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [15] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [16]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jeffrey.down...@nau.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(928)%20523-8354
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peter_skages...@uml.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(718)%20482-5690
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jeffrey.down...@nau.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(928)%20523-8354
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s...@bestweb.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[12]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[13]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cspeirce.com_peirce-2Dl_peirce-2Dl.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=GgYD9np7UIKiWXudOQ792zFwpyXMCGGzpQAt3LoLiIM&s=KUvGioldboIAqoQkXTlJU8kbKR6Y14DsKpQrSacnq1A&e=
[14]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[15]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[16] 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 .
