John, Jon, Gary f, list, You wrote:
JS: If these issues were hazy and imperfect for Peirce, Lady Welby, and the Significs group, I don't believe that they can be resolved by the same methods they used in their day. . And yet in the passage you quoted Peirce writes: Now it is easy to see that my attempt to draw this three-way, “trivialis,” distinction, relates to a real and important three-way distinction, and yet that it is quite hazy and needs a vast deal of study before it is rendered perfect. Peirce says here that this kind of analysis "relates to a real and important three-way distinction." It may yet have been--at that point in time--"quite hazy," but since Peirce saw it as "a real and important three-way distinction" there would seem to be very good reason to continue to study it in the interests of rendering it at least a bit less imperfect. You concluded: JS: I don't want to block anybody's "way of inquiry". But I wouldn't waste my time, *unless* some significant new evidence is discovered. From my remarks just above I'm sure it's clear that I hardly find it a "waste of time" to pursue this sort of study for those who, like Jon, are interested in it. And, yes, comments about 'wasting time' can tend to block the way of inquiry in my opinion. So, if someone is not interested in this line of inquiry then they needn't read the thread, ought read or participate in or start another thread. As you quote Gary f as writing: "I’d better leave this thread to those who can follow it, or those looking for more definitive answers to questions that Peirce left open." At the same time there are certainly other "promising" questions that Peirce left unanswered. : JS: Those are also questions that people who have (until now) ignored Peirce are likely to find significant. They might become converts to Peircean methods *if* his methods, when applied to the new evidence, could answer them. Let's not only hope so, but also work towards drawing these potential "converts to Peircean methods" to them. But in terms of *semeiotic theory-*-certainly not everyone's cup of tea--a question that Peirce termed "a *real and important* three-way distinction" which will need "*a vast deal of study* before it is rendered perfect" seems one that those so inclined to study ought not be dissuaded from doing. Quite the contrary. In a word, I see no reason why any and all areas of inquiry suggested by Peirce work ought not be pursued. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:37 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 3/21/2018 8:02 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > >> I’d better leave this thread to those who can follow it, or those looking >> for more definitive answers to questions that Peirce left open. >> > > There are many questions that Peirce "left open". I believe that the > most promising ones to pursue are those for which the past century > has found evidence that wasn't available in his day. Those are also > questions that people who have (until now) ignored Peirce are likely > to find significant. They might become converts to Peircean methods > *if* his methods, when applied to the new evidence, could answer them. > > But the passage by Peirce [EP2:498] makes me doubt that the following > issues are promising ones to pursue: > >> Now it is easy to see that my attempt to draw this three-way, >> “trivialis,” distinction, relates to a real and important three-way >> distinction, and yet that it is quite hazy and needs a vast deal of >> study before it is rendered perfect. Lady Welby has got hold of the >> same real distinction in her “Sense, Meaning, Significance,” but >> conceives it as imperfectly as I do, but imperfectly in other ways. >> > > If these issues were hazy and imperfect for Peirce, Lady Welby, and > the Significs group, I don't believe that they can be resolved by > the same methods they used in their day. > > I don't want to block anybody's "way of inquiry". But I wouldn't > waste my time, *unless* some significant new evidence is discovered. > > John > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
