Disregarding the pejorative tone of your note the creators of CP certainly did not see their work as exhaustive though they hoped for a complete display of Peirce online. Blocking the road of inquiry is to Peirce one of the major evils and if I have committed it I apologize. The substance of your note I leave to wiser heads to determine the weight of.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, Jon S, list, > > Stephen wrote: > > SR: I think this is a needless and unproductive complexification of > matters Peirce himself did not see as important. > > > I completely disagree that Jon's inquiry "is a needless and unproductive > complexification of matters Peirce himself did not see as important." In > fact, Jon is raising the curtain on an aspect of Peirce's late semeiotic > which several members of this forum find of considerable interest, while it > is certainly deepening my understanding of these topics. I see no reason > whatsoever to support your comment that "Peirce himself did not see" this > as an important inquiry and quite the contrary. > > SR: The term perfect sign does not appear in CP. The term perfect is used > in all manner of contexts but less than 100 times. There are over 1000 > references to signs but none is preceded by the word perfect. > > > Two points. First, the CP is but a sampling of Peirce's work, so your > stats hold little, if any, weight. Were one able to sample the frequency of > certain terms and expressions in all the published work (including, for > example, NEM and the PEP's chronological edition, but others as well; and > never forgetting that much of Peirce's work has not yet been published) one > might come up with a *very* different frequency rate. > > Second, the frequency of a term or expression says almost nothing about > it's importance, especially when one considers that Peirce introduced a > great deal of new terminology into his late semeiotic researches, only a > fraction of which has, to my knowledge, been published. Take any number of > terms and expressions from that late work and you will find few instances > of these terms, some of which are considered of great importance to a > number of established semioticians. Now had Peirce lived another ten years, > say. . . > > SR: I think it inhibits philosophy itself to regard a term not > fundamental to an author's understanding as somehow worth extended > treatment as something that will somehow advance u thinking. > > > What *I* think "inhibits philosophy" is the tendency to "block the road > of inquiry" because one doesn't find it of personal interest or personal > value. You have no idea, in my opinion, whether or not this late move by > Peirce is "fundamental" to his understanding, and even less how further > research into it will or will not "somehow advance" our understanding of > the topics under consideration. > > SR: Perhaps we should rate subjects by their prominence in Peirce's own > lexicon > > > First, again your estimate of the "prominence" of "subjects" in "Peirce's > own lexicon" seems based on a string search of the CP, hardly likely to > give an accurate account of what was important for Peirce and which may > warrant further inquiry by those, like JAS, who seem likely to contribute > to it. > > Besides, as mentioned above, there being much more published Peirce beyond > the CP (which edition has significant limitations), as John Sowa recently > noted a vast amount of manuscript material hasn't yet been published, and > this is particularly so, I believe, as regards his late work, especially > his late work in semeiotics, his letters, marginalia, contributions to > dictionaries, etc. > > Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order > to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with > what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself > deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: > > Do not block the way of inquiry. > > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think this is a needless and unproductive complexification of matters >> Peirce himself did not see as important. The term perfect sign does not >> appear in CP. The term perfect is used in all manner of contexts but less >> than 100 times. There are over 1000 references to signs but none is >> preceded by the word perfect. I think it inhibits philosophy itself to >> regard a term not fundamental to an author's understanding as somehow worth >> extended treatment as something that will somehow advance u thinking. >> Perhaps we should rate subjects by their prominence in Peirce's own >> lexicon. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> List: >>> >>> >>> Having gotten a better handle on Peirce's concept of a Quasi-mind, we >>> can now make another attempt at sorting out what he meant by "perfect sign" >>> in EP 2:545n25. Here is a summary of what that text tells us about it. >>> >>> - It is the aggregate formed by a Sign and all the Signs that its >>> occurrence carries with it, and involves the present existence of no >>> other >>> Sign except those that are its ingredients. >>> - It is not in a statical condition, because it is an existent that >>> acts; and whatever acts, changes. >>> - Its every real ingredient is aging, its energy of action upon the >>> Interpretant is running low, its sharp edges are wearing down, and its >>> outlines are becoming more indefinite. >>> - It is perpetually being acted upon by its Object, receiving from >>> it the accretions of new Signs that bring it fresh energy and kindle the >>> energy that it already had, but which had lain dormant. >>> - It constantly undergoes spontaneous changes that do not happen by >>> its will, but are phenomena of growth. >>> - It is a Quasi-mind and the Sheet of Assertion of Existential >>> Graphs. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Perfect Sign involves the *present *existence (2ns) of *only* those >>> Signs that comprise it, which are aging and wearing down; yet it continues >>> receiving accretions of *new *Signs (3ns) from its Object and >>> undergoing *spontaneous *changes (1ns). After further contemplation, I >>> now believe that Peirce was describing *the same thing* here as in the >>> passage about "the ideal sign" that I have mentioned previously, which he >>> wrote a couple of years earlier. >>> >>> >>> CSP: What we call a "fact" is something having the structure of a >>> proposition, but supposed to be an element of the very universe itself. >>> The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and by being joined with >>> other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining an >>> interpretant which would be the *perfect Truth*, the absolute Truth, >>> and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very >>> Universe. Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection, or >>> *entelechy*, which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the >>> word to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite >>> perfect, >>> and so identical,--in such identity as a sign may have,--with the very >>> matter >>> denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy of the >>> Universe of being, then, the Universe *qua *fact, will be that Universe >>> in its aspect as a sign, the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the fact that >>> is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign. >>> (EP 2:304; 1904) >>> >>> >>> >>> Contrary to my previous hypothesis, "Perfect Sign" is *not* synonymous >>> with "Quasi-mind"; instead, it designates the Truth that corresponds to the >>> Universe. As such, it also satisfies the last bullet above, since the >>> Sheet of Assertion or Phemic Sheet is not only a Quasi-mind, but also "a >>> Seme of *The Truth*, that is, of the widest Universe of Reality" (CP >>> 4.553; 1906). Of course, this does not at all entail that a Quasi-mind >>> and the Universe are the same thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> CSP: … one and the same construction may be, when regarded in two >>> different ways, two altogether different diagrams; and that to which it >>> testifies in the one capacity, it must not be considered as testifying to >>> in the other capacity. For example, the Entire Existential Graph of a >>> Phemic Sheet, in any state of it, is a Diagram of the logical Universe, as >>> it is also a Diagram of a Quasi-mind; but it must not, on *that* >>> account, be considered as testifying to the identity of those two. It is >>> like a telescope eye piece which at one focus exhibits a star at which the >>> instrument is pointed, and at another exhibits all the faults of the >>> objective lens. (NEM 4:324; 1906) >>> >>> Any comments? I am guessing that these topics must simply not be of >>> much interest, or people are just very busy these days, since I find it >>> hard to believe that everyone agrees with everything I have been posting. >>> :-) >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
