After a few years, my sense is that Peirce's influence will require another generation or two before its undeniable relevance will be communicated in a way that can impact the entire intellectual waterfront. Dewey and James seem more prominent now (not very but at least mentioned) on the "liberal arts" side. On the scientific side, the fragmentation and triumphalism of fragments are probably enough to exclude Peirce for some time. I would be interested in other perceptions of Peirce's relevance and current influence. I am just one pair of eyes,
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut - yes, exactly. We are all exploring Peircean logic and semiosis. > That's my point. We are all, at the DI [Dynamic Interpretant] phase of > interpretation and cannot, ourselves, say that "I have arrived at the FI [ > FInal Interpretant] phase of Truth and what I say about Peirce is The > Truth". > > We have to acknowledge the research and scholarship and analytic > understanding of all postings - and thus, can only express our agreement or > disagreement with the post, and these disagreements can be strongly felt - > and give our reasons - and - leave it at that. That is - we cannot move on > to conclude that another person's interpretation is 'unPeircean because it > is different from mine'. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Mon 23/07/18 4:54 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List, > I think I have to mention a third source for my considerations: They are > based on Peircean categories, Stanley N. Salthe, and: This list. If in this > list the question about how the categories might be related to the tenses > would not have been asked a few years ago, I would not have thought about > this question, like not too about many other questions, had this list not > existed. This list and its keepers are very benefitial, I think. > Best, Helmut > > 23. Juli 2018 um 21:19 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" > wrote: > > List - > > Helmut - Of course your outlines are based on your own analysis - and as > such, are open to the examination and approval or disapproval of others as > well as yourself. > > My view is that we, all of us, are operating in the 'DI phase of > analysis'. The Dynamic Interpretant. None of us, are at the FI, Final > Interpretant, or 'ultimate truth' phase - and, as Peirce pointed out - > that's rarely reached. > > Therefore, none of us can claim to act as 'the gatekeeper', as the > ultimate accepted articulators and explainers of The Real True Peirce. And > therefore, none of us can claim that we alone are using Peirce in an > 'ethical manner' - since we are each equal in our exploration of his work. > > Most certainly, as such, we can adamantly agree or disagree with the 'DI > Interpretations' of others on this list and elsewhere - but, in all cases, > I think that such agreement/disagreement remains at the DI level - i.e., > all one can say is: ' I disagree with your interpretation; I have a very > different interpretation' - and never move into the FI level where one > says: - 'you are unPeircean and not using his terms in a correct manner'. > > With regard to your adding a time concept, Helmut, I happen to agree. I > use Koichiro Matsuno's analysis of the three modes of time, present, > perfect and progressive [correlating with the three categories] - and > consider that they fit in well with the Peircean description of the > categories. > > Edwina > > > > On Mon 23/07/18 3:02 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent: > > List, > I must admit that my usage of the composition concept is based on my own > considerations, see www.signs-in-time.de . But I guess or hope, that my > considerations are in accord with Peirce, they are based on the categories, > though I have added a time-concept to the categories concept´s explanation. > They are also based on Stanley N. Salthes distinction between subsumption > (related with classification) and composition. > Best, Helmut > > 23. Juli 2018 um 17:37 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" > wrote: > > List: > > I'm afraid I don't see the point of Gary F's post - for I don't see how my > outline, in support of Helmut's post, contradicts or denies Peirce's usage > of these terms - including 'analysis'. Therefore, I feel that I have > followed Peirce's 'ethics of terminology'. > > I note that Peirce defines the Dynamic Object as the "really efficient > but not immediately present Object". > > Exactly - the DO is part of the Sign's triadic relations; it is an > 'efficient force' - - and this is why I disagree with Gary F's view that > the DO is not part of the composition of the Sign .... “matter of the > sign’s composition” in the sense that it is “within” or “part of” the sign; > a dynamic object is not". After all, without that interaction with what is > called the DO - then, the IO wouldn't exist - nor the II or even DI or > even, the Representamen! > > And of course, I agree that" Logical analysis is not an analysis into > existing elements. It is the tracing out of relations between concepts on > the assumption that along with each given or found concept is given its > negative, and every other relation resulting from a transposition of its > correlates. ] CP 1.294, c.1905 ]" > > Exactly- and this is why I have a problem with JAS's microanalysis of > terms - which, in my view, is a mechanical outline that ignores the > dynamics of networked semiosic relations. > > So- we have some basic disagreements in interpreting Peircean semiosis. > Nothing wrong with that! > > Edwina > > > > On Mon 23/07/18 11:04 AM , [email protected] sent: > > Helmut, Edwina, > > Perhaps I should have specified that I was referring to Peirce’s usage of > these terms, including “analysis.” I know there are other uses of these > terms, but on the Peirce list I feel bound by Peirce’s ethics of > terminology, without bothering to say so. To make up for that omission from > my post, I’ll give it this time entirely in Peirce’s own words: > > [[ It seems to me that one of the first useful steps toward a science of > semeiotic (σημειωτική), or the cenoscopic science of signs, must be the > accurate definition, or logical analysis, of the concepts of the science. I > define a Sign as anything which on the one hand is so determined by an > Object and on the other hand so determines an idea in a person's mind, that > this latter determination, which I term the Interpretant of the sign, is > thereby mediately determined by that Object. A sign, therefore, has a > triadic relation to its Object and to its Interpretant. But it is necessary > to distinguish the Immediate Object, or the Object as the Sign represents > it, from the Dynamical Object, or really efficient but not immediately > present Object. It is likewise requisite to distinguish the Immediate > Interpretant, i.e. the Interpretant represented or signified in the Sign, > from the Dynamic Interpretant, or effect actually produced on the mind by > the Sign; and both of these from the Normal Interpretant, or effect that > would be produced on the mind by the Sign after sufficient development of > thought. On these considerations I base a recognition of ten respects in > which Signs may be divided. ] letter to Welby, December 1908 (CP 8.343, > EP2:482) ] > > [[ Logical analysis is not an analysis into existing elements. It is the > tracing out of relations between concepts on the assumption that along with > each given or found concept is given its negative, and every other relation > resulting from a transposition of its correlates. ] CP 1.294, c.1905 ] > > [[ How much shall be embraced in the predicate and how many subjects shall > be recognized depends, for the ordinary analyses of logic, upon what mode > of analysis will answer the purpose in hand. ] EP2:172, 1903 ] > > [[ Everybody recognizes that it is no inconsiderable art, this business of > “phaneroscopic” analysis by which one frames a scientific definition. ] > EP2:403, 1907 ] > > Gary f. > > > > From: Edwina Taborsky > Sent: 23-Jul-18 09:15 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Logical Depth and Signification > > > > List: > > I consider Helmut's point as valid; I consider that a Sign, as a triad, > most definitely has a composition - of that triad. So, yes, an IO is part > of a Sign's composition, but, the DO is, I maintain, also part of the > Sign's composition. After all - the Sign, that triad, only functions when > it is in interaction/relation with a DO. > > And the DO only functions as a DO when it is in interaction with another > DO- in a triadic semiosic process. > > I don't agree that "the concepts of sign, object and interpretant are > products of the analysis of semiosic phenomena'. This suggests that they > are purely intellectual constructs of the human mind. I see them instead as > actual, real phenomena, as parts of a dynamic interactional process of > matter/mind that produces instantiations of matter/mind. > > Edwina > > On Mon 23/07/18 8:33 AM , [email protected] sent: > > Helmut, > > Sign, object and interpretant are the three correlates of a triadic > relation. They are not matters of a sign’s composition. An immediate object > could be considered a “matter of the sign’s composition” in the sense that > it is “within” or “part of” the sign; a dynamic object is not. The concepts > of sign, object and interpretant are products of the analysis of semiosic > phenomena. Object and interpretant can be further subdivided as their > categorial nature allows. The products of these analyses of semiosis are > the basis of Peirce’s classifications of sign types. > > Gary f. > > > ----------------------------- 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 .
