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/ [1] }{ _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
[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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 31-Dec-17 10:25
To: [email protected]
Cc: [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/ [2] [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
Links:
------
[1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/
[2] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/
