Kirsti,
We seem to have a language problem here. I don’t understand your distinction
between “just interpreting a quote and going beyond it,” or between
“paraphrasing Peirce” and stating my own inferences. To me, studying Peirce (or
any philosopher) means recreating his or her thought process. That entails both
interpreting quotes and “going beyond them,” both paraphrasing the writer and
making inferences about the object(s) of the signs uttered by the writer. In a
situation like this at least, an interpretant is usually another sign with the
same object as the original sign. Of course, the perennial problem with reading
words is that we are forced to use symbols in place of the indices that would
direct our attention to the object. In other words, we have to guess what the
object is, and then make inferences about it which we hope are parallel or
analogous to the inferences made by the original writer. And hope that when we
guess wrong, we will find out sooner or later that this is the case, and
recognize the need to guess again.
For instance, when Peirce writes about the difference between “laboratory”
thinkers and “seminary” thinkers, my guess is that he is referring to the
difference between experientially testable hypotheses and theories that are not
testable in that way (and probably follow the method of authority instead).
Maybe your guess is different — I can’t tell, from what you’ve written.
Likewise I can’t tell what you have in mind when you write “I was just one
reader amongst many. Why the tone?” I could guess what you might mean by that,
but I have no confidence in my guess, as apparently I guessed wrong about what
your previous post referred to. As far as I can tell, you’re also guessing
wrong about my meaning (and inferring my “tone” from your guess). You seem to
have more confidence in your own guesses than I have in mine. In order to carry
a conversation like this forward, we have to keep on guessing and revising our
guesses; but sometimes one doubts whether it is worth the effort.
During my teaching career, I used to tell my students (and show them when
possible) that the greatest barrier to genuine communication between people
with a common language is the assumption that you really know what the other
person is talking about. If I’d been a Peircean then, I would have said that
the barrier is the difference between the immediate object of the sign heard by
the interpreter and the dynamic object of the sign uttered by the utterer. Your
post has raised my consciousness of that barrier — which makes it very
difficult to respond appropriately. So all I’m doing here is applying one of
the main insights I get from Peircean semiotics (explained in more detail in
Chapter 2 of my book Turning Signs) to the concrete example of the exchange
between you and me. If you ‘take it personally’ or find its “tone” offensive,
that’s unfortunate but beyond my control.
Believe it or not, I too was sincere in wishing you a Happy New Year!
Gary f.
} The Path is fundamentally without words. We use words to reveal the Path.
[Blue Cliff Record 25] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 31-Dec-17 16:46
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6
Gary f,
Sorry for inexact expressions. I should have made a distinction between just
interpreting a quote and going beyond it. Paraphrasing is customarily marked
with expressions like "as XXX says elsewhere...".
If I had problems with understanding where you were paraphrasing Peirce, and
where you were stating your own inferences, I was just one reader amongst
many. Why the tone?
My point has been that words and ideas are not in any kind of identity
relation. And that the relation between signs and meanings is a tricky
question, not a simple one.
If you disagree, why can't we just agree to disagree?
Surely you are well aware that Peirce did not mean something like a college
chemistry lab with laboratory and seminary philosophy.
He does offer many very detailed precepts for thought experiments as well as
practical everyday experimentations he conducted himself, many of them for many
years, even decades.
Most of these I have conducted myself. Following his descriptions as accurately
as I can. Very often Peirce points out that everyone should do so. In order to
find out oneself. Instead of only following the method of authority. - Which is
OK, if and after....
I really meant to thank youn and wish you a happy new year.
Best wishes anyway, Kirsti
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] kirjoitti 31.12.2017 22:29:
> Kirsti, you quoted my post in yours and commented that you “cannot
> understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them in
> what follows.”
>
> It’s quite simple: The part enclosed in quotation marks is a direct
> quote of Peirce’s exact words, and the rest is my own words. This is
> what I always do in my posts, whenever I am commenting on something
> Peirce (or anyone) wrote; I “try to keep quotes and interpretations so
> marked that any reader can tell which is which” (quoting you, in that
> case). In my post, I included the link to my blog so that anyone who
> wanted the exact source citation could find it there. I don’t see the
> problem with that.
>
> I also don’t see how your claim — that Peirce’s own choice of term,
> such as “phaneron,” is “inconsistent with his deeper views” — can be
> tested in any laboratory, as you appear to suggest. I don’t know any
> way of comprehending Peirce’s “deeper views” about matters except to
> study what he wrote about them, on the DEFAULT assumption that he
> meant exactly what he wrote, and “it is quite indifferent whether it
> be regarded as having to do with thought or with language, the
> wrapping of thought, since thought, like an onion, is composed of
> nothing but wrappings” (Peirce, EP2:460).
> Perhaps you do have a better way of gaining insight into Peirce’s
> deeper thoughts, but if so, I think it’s up to you to demonstrate it
> rather than ask the rest of us to take it on faith.
>
> And Happy New Year to you too!
>
> Gary f.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [
> <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 31-Dec-17 10:25
> To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
> Cc: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6
>
> Gary f, list
>
> My source on Eucleides was Grattan-Guinness (The Fontana history of
> the mathematical sciences) and my thirty years old notes on the topic.
> (& Liddell and Scott, of course.)
>
> It is important to keep in mind that no such divisions (or
>
> classifications) between sciences that are taken for granted today did
> not exist in ancient times. - Still, Eucleides was studied by
> mathematicians for centuries. It was taken for granted. Up till
> non-Euclidean math. Even the Bible came much, much later.
>
> Meaning is context-dependent, that much we all agree. We have signs
> from old times, no dispute on that. But do we have meanings?
>
> I have problems with the following:
>
> GARY f.: My
>
>> answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought,
>
>> implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to,
>
>> <http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/>
>> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1] [1]: “upon a
> continuous line
>
>> there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only
> room
>
>> for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a point
> on the
>
>> line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if the line has
> a
>
>> beginning and end, then it has those two points
>
>> (discontinuities) already.
>
> I cannot understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo
> them in what follows.
>
> Peirce took up in several contexts his point of marking any points and
> thus breaking continuity. He took care to set down rules for (logical)
> acceptability for doing so.
>
> In order to understand his meaning three triads are needed.
> Possibility, virtuality and actuality makes one of them. (But only one
> of them.)
>
> CSP wrote on Ethics of Terminology. - Did he follow these ethical
> rules?
>
> - I'd say YES and NO. To the despair of his readers he chanced his
> terminology over the decaces very, very often. But it was HIS to
> change, in order to accommondate with renewed understanding of his
> whole conceptual system, his new findings along the way in making it
> move...
>
> I firmly believe he had a reason every time for those changes. BUT he
> also experimented with words he took into a kind of test driving for
> his concepts. Such as "phaneron". An experiment doomed to fail.
>
> Why do I believe so? - I have never read him explicitly saying so. But
> the term (etymology etc) did get the idea twisted in such ways which
> were inconsistent with his deeper views. - So when I read those texts
> by him using "phaneron", I took note of the year and looked forward to
> see him stop using it.
>
> It not a job for me to search whether he did or not. It is job for
> seminary minded philosophers. Not for the laboratory minded ones.
>
> I wish to take up Ethics of Interpretation in a similar spirit. In
> order to make our ideas more clear, it may be good to try to keep
> quotes and interpretations so marked that any reader can tell which is
> which.
>
> It is an impossible task, I know. Just as impossible to any human
> being as is Christian ethics. But a very good guideline to keep in
> mind & to follow as best one can.
>
> The links in any post may get read or not. - It takes too much time to
> read all those offered.
>
> What cannot be included in the verbal response, I find informative.
>
> Still, I may not have the time at my disposal to open them.
>
> Looking forward to forthcoming chapters in Lowell lectures. My thanks
> for the most valuable job you are doing Gary f.
>
> Best regards, Kirsti
-----------------------------
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 .
