Edwina, List: A gatekeeper is someone who seeks to restrict what others say and do; I have simply expressed my personal opinion, exactly the same as you. Did you even read my whole post, or just stop and react after the second sentence? Please note what I said in the last sentence, in particular. In the past, I have not adequately recognized the difference between talking about biosemiotics and talking about semeiotic within logic and metaphysics, for which I hereby apologize.
Thanks, Jon On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, list - using the term 'more legitimate' is terminology used by a > Gatekeeper. After all, to declare that 'some readings of Peirce are more > legitimate' is exactly the wording used by a Gatekeeper - who declares that > some 'readings/interpretations' are 'more legitimate'! Legitimate > according to what non-individual authoritative scale? > > As I said - all each one of us, who are each equal to each other and each > as dumb/smart as each other can do - is to state that our individual > interpretation agrees/disagrees with another - and that's all. > > As Peirce himself said - to leave truth up to an individual is 'most > pernicious' - and no individual has the right to say that a > reading/interpretation is 'more legitimate/truthful than another. Again - > all one can do is say: I personally disagree - and my own view is > quite different and is such and such. Period. None of us has the right to > declare that another view has a universal non-validity [i.e., is 'not > legitimate']. ...You can't say it's 'unPeircean' or is 'not legitimate' > because that inserts an external authoritative criterion. All you can do is > say: I, personally, don't agree..... > > Edwina > > On Mon 22/01/18 9:48 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > I never have and never would set myself up as gatekeeper to Peirce or some > kind of authoritative interpreter of his writings. What I have argued in > the past, but have no desire to rehash now, is that some readings of Peirce > (or any other author) are more legitimate than others. Instead, I > respectfully would like to suggest that when we discuss semeiotic concepts > and terminology, we should be clear about the specific level of Peirce's > architectonic classification of the sciences in which we are operating. > There are at least three that seem to come up regularly. > > 1. The normative science of logic as semeiotic. > 2. The metaphysical doctrine of semeiotic realism. > 3. The special science of biology, which includes biosemiotics. > > This order corresponds not only to how they are arranged in Peirce's > scheme, but also to how much he had to say directly about them during his > lifetime. As such, I acknowledge that there is more freedom in > biosemiotics--the topic of this particular thread--than in the > philosophical aspects of semeiotic (logic and metaphysics) to go well > beyond anything that Peirce explicitly stated, while still remaining within > the scope of broadly Peircean views. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Just one other comment. I think that we have to be careful on this list >> [and I am NOT referring to you, John] that we do not set ourselves up as >> gatekeepers to Peirce. One or two people on this list seem to think that >> way - i.e.,I've been told several times that my views are 'UnPeircean'. My >> response is that we are all equal; I, for example, am as smart and as dumb >> as any other person. I don't think that anyone can tell another person that >> their views are 'unPeircean' or are 'not Peirce' because none of us are the >> Authoritative Gatekeepers of What is Peirce. All one can say is: 'I >> disagree with your view'.....and outline your own view. That's it. >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
