BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - you have used those terms before- therefore, it is irrelevant
that you haven't used them in the current thread. And I disagree that
forbidding such terms as 'unPeircean' and 'more/less legitimate' would
block 'the way of inquiry. I consider that their use actually blocks
inquiry since it sets up boundaries to the discussion. It tells the
other person in the debate: No- I won't consider your view as having
any validity because it is 'judged' as 'unPeircean'.
As for your other comments - I disagree with your
compartmentalization of Peirce. Since, as you note:
Hence the normative science of logic as semeiotic explores how
"every intelligence which can learn from experience" (CP 3.428; 1896)
ought to go about pursuing truth as "the conformity of a
representamen to its object" (CP 5.554, EP 2:380; 1906). Likewise,
"Metaphysics ... endeavors to comprehend the Reality of Phenomena"
(CP 2:197; 1903). "Its business is to study the most general
features of reality and real objects" (CP 6.6, EP 2:375; 1906).
Then..the fact that biological systems have intelligence and can
learn from experience means that Peircean semiosis should not be
defined as a 'special science'. And what does 'special science' mean?
You seem to consider that it is a 'broad and open' use of Peircean
theories. No.
That is, in my view, biological systems ARE logical - and
biosemiotics certainly wants to 'comprehend the reality of phenomena.
Many may consider that logic and metaphysics are the sole domain of
the human mind - and certainly, the human mind is focused on these
areas as conceptual areas of thought - but - although the biological
realm does not itself reflect on or study the nature of logic and
metaphysics - it nevertheless operates within the rules of logic.
Your view, as I understand it, that biosemiotics is a 'free
interpretation of Peirce' is simply not - in my view, valid.
Biosemiotics is not a special use of Peirce. It does not go beyond
Peircean framework but is thoroughly grounded in his theories.
Edwina
On Mon 22/01/18 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
Your labeling of evaluations such as "unPeircean" and "more/less
legitimate" as "Gatekeeper terminology" is likewise a judgmental
assertion that expresses your personal opinion. If we were to forbid
all such statements from the List, then there would be very little
discussion at all going forward; it would thus "block the way of
inquiry" (CP 1.135, EP 2:48; 1898). Please also note that I have not
applied these or any similar descriptions to anything that you have
(or anyone else has) said in the current thread; nor have I argued
here or elsewhere that "Peircean semiosis is confined to the
philosophies of logic or metaphysics." I have simply suggested that
we be clear about whether we are talking about those branches of
philosophy (as I usually am) or about broader applications in the
physical and biological sciences (as you usually are).
That said, it is not the case, at least according to Peirce, that
logic and metaphysics apply exclusively "within the human conceptual
domain." "For normative science in general being the science of the
laws of conformity of things to ends, ... logic [considers] those
things whose end is to represent something" (CP 5.129, EP 2:200;
1903). "Logic regarded from one instructive, though partial and
narrow, point of view, is the theory of deliberate thinking. To say
that any thinking is deliberate is to imply that it is controlled
with a view to making it conform to a purpose or ideal" (CP 1.573, EP
2:376; 1906). Hence the normative science of logic as semeiotic
explores how "every intelligence which can learn from experience" (CP
3.428; 1896) ought to go about pursuing truth as "the conformity of a
representamen to its object" (CP 5.554, EP 2:380; 1906). Likewise,
"Metaphysics ... endeavors to comprehend the Reality of Phenomena"
(CP 2:197; 1903). "Its business is to study the most general
features of reality and real objects" (CP 6.6, EP 2:375; 1906).
By contrast, it seems to me that biosemiotics falls under the
special sciences, rather than philosophy. "For those [special]
sciences, experience is that which their special means of observation
directly bring to light, and it is contrasted with the interpretations
of those observations which are effected by connecting these
experiences with what we otherwise know. But for philosophy, which
is the science which sets in order those observations which lie open
to every man every day and hour, experience can only mean the total
cognitive result of living, and includes interpretations quite as
truly as it does the matter of sense" (CP 7.538; undated). Do we at
least agree on that much?
Regards,
Jon
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
- Jon - my final comment on this is that to declare that another
view is 'unPeircean' or is 'more/less legitimate' is Gatekeeper
terminology for it inserts a non-individual judgment.
Yes, I read your full post - and don't agree that biosemiotics goes
''well beyond what Peirce explicitly stated'...After all, if it goes
'well beyond' the explicit, 'while still remaining within the scope
of broadly Peircean views'...then, you have watered biosemiotics down
to a peripheral and even diluted or 'free' Peircean semiosis. As you
say - such a definition that you use implies a 'freedom' of
interpretation. Those of us who refer to his many references to Mind
as Matter disagree that Peircean semiosis is confined to the
philosophies of logic or metaphysics - both of which are within the
human conceptual domain. Instead, we consider that biosemiotics is
fully grounded in basic Peircean semiotics. Not 'well beyond' but
fully grounded'.
that's it.
Edwina
On Mon 22/01/18 10:45 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
[2] sent:
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 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.
*The normative science of logic as semeiotic.
*The metaphysical doctrine of semeiotic realism.
*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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Edwina Taborsky 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.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
