Dear Gary R, list,
I actually found your comment and subsequent Reactions to be very helpful. It exposes what we say/do know about Peirce’s concept of ‘community of inquiry’. All such appearances are now flying around and set down. What needs left to do, then, is ‘first working through the puzzles, in this way go on to show, if possible, the truth of all the beliefs we hold about these experiences; and, if this is not possible, the truth of the greatest number and the most authoritative. For if the difficulties are resolved and the beliefs are left in place, we will have done enough showing.’ I think if you were to investigate a bit more closely, you might recognize that Peirce has given us a proper philosophical method. But where is it, who possesses it, and how shall we know it? Until we have discovered the right path to pursue – a path overgrown by the errors and illusions of sense- our *conception* of philosophy is only a scholastic *conception* – a *conception*, that is, of a system of cognition which we are trying to elaborate into a science.. Moreover, what the genuine community of inquiry recognizes is not merely obvious. To assert that we are in possession of that recognition, itself, is difficult and *hard* to reconcile with the possibility that we may not belong to that community, but only promises to belong to that community. It is to our advantage to remember that ‘our defects are the eyes with which we see the ideal.’ ‘An enlightened version of Homeric *ate* (blindness) remains the cause of hubris even in Socrates.’ For instance, Rick Kennedy relays the story of “King of Siam, while listening to a Dutch ambassador tell of the far north, suddenly recoil at the report that water gets so cold in Holland that it turns hard enough for an elephant to walk on it. Astonished, the king replies, “Hitherto I have believed the strange Things you have told me, because I look upon you as a sober fair man, but now I am sure you lye.” The story’s goal is to help readers understand that reliance on one’s own experience and reason is limited and that assent to testimony, even highly improbable testimony, from a credible witness is important for right reasoning.” Alas, if only Peirce was straight with us, rather than succumbing to the predominance of their horror of the “too much”. With best wishes, Jerry R On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, > > Near the end of your post, which makes a number of points worthy of a good > moderator, you wrote: > > [[ So, contra your view of the list, Gary f, I do not see Peirce-L as > *essentially* a "community of inquiry," ]] > > I also do not see Peirce-L as *essentially* a "community of inquiry"; I > see it as essentially a “big tent” which happens to *include* a community > of inquiry into the truth about Peirce’s system, and I did my best to make > that clear in my post. But obviously I failed, although on reading it > again, I don’t see how I could have made my point much clearer. There must > be something there which is drawing all these hostile readings and angry > responses to ideas I did not express, but I just can’t see where they are > coming from. I certainly don’t want to be unhelpful to my peers, so instead > of thinking twice before writing a post (as a generally do), maybe I should > think nine or ten times. That should save me a lot of writing time too! > Anyway, I’ll stop now — sorry if I caused the list any grief. > > Gary f. > > *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 31-Jul-18 15:10 > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: peerages > > > > Gary f, list, > > > > While I would certainly hope that all the subscribers to the Peirce-L > forum know that they are peers here, I'm not at all certain that all do > feel that way--are always being made to feel that way; and it seems to me > unlikely that a comment like the following will help many--including > perhaps especially observers, so-called 'lurkers'--feel that sense of > peerage. > > > > You wrote: > > > > Gf: It’s become clear lately that many (perhaps most) members of the > peirce-l community are not interested in this kind of inquiry, and belong > instead to a community interested mainly in the exchange of opinions, > either about Peirce’s system or about other topics they associate with > Peirce. > > > > Most of the members of Peirce-L are observers group which the founder of > this forum, Joseph Ransdell, earnestly welcomed to it. And neither you nor > I nor anyone but they know what they are interested in. Joe wrote (and I'd > especially encourage observers to read this passage): > > > > OBSERVERS ("LURKERS") > ------------------------------ > > *Observers as well as active participants are welcome, and equally so: > this is a public forum. Moreover, observers are participants, too, insofar > as they are affected by what they observe; and those who believe, as Peirce > did, that thought is best regarded as essentially communicational in form > will tend to place more emphasis than usual on the importance of > recognizing observation as participation, drawing no general distinction > between participants and observers as list members. I should add that I > have learned, as list manager, that there are always a substantial number > of persons on the list who never post — there are various reasons for this > — who nevertheless follow the conversations closely and avidly. It should > also be borne in mind that the list is subscribed in various ways to > further mailing list and bulletin board media.* > > > > What I do know about some lurkers from off-list exchanges is that they are > involved in many pursuits, including *various kinds of activities* > including research or less formal inquiry, but not necessarily specific > lines of inquiry (e.g., semeiotic grammar and matters related to > existential graphs) which have somewhat dominated the list for some time > now. While I consider such inquiries important and have some considerable > interest in them myself, I know that others on the list are involved in > activities involving (sometimes somewhat loosely) Peircean, perhaps > especially pragmatic, ideas in fields other than academic philosophy, for > example, architecture, literature, linguistics, art and music, business, > governance, etc. It is my sense that they are *not* primarily interested > in the mere "exchange of opinions," and there is a hint of condescension in > your suggesting that since they may not be particularly interested in the > topics dominating inquiry on the list at any given time (and as if > scientific inquiry were the only thing that was supposed or allowed to > happen here), that they aren't seriously involved in the Peirce-related > ideas. > > > > As for the list being a 'community', Joe Ransdell insisted--and I strongly > agree--that Peirce-L is *not* a 'community' or even several > 'communities', but rather a 'place', a 'forum'. (I tend to rather > frequently use the term 'forum' in my posts to underscore that point.) > > > > *A forum is not the same as a discussion group with a more or less > definite agenda. Forums are essentially places where communication occurs > rather than organizations of persons for special discussion purposes. > Special on-line discussion groups can be arranged for, but the preference > of the members of PEIRCE-L has always shown itself to be for the open > forum. This is perhaps due at least in part to the fact that the existence > of places where people can and do critically question and challenge one > another without the usual protections of office, rank, agenda, and official > moderation all but disappeared from public life — including intellectual > life — in the U.S. and many other countries as well during the 20th > Century, and there is a strongly sensed need for what such places uniquely > provide and which the internet has made possible again. . . (all Ransdell > quotations are from the Peirce-L page at the Arisbe site:* > *http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM > <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM>)* > > > > As list moderator I have recently begun suggesting, even encouraging > members of Peirce-L (now perhaps especially observers) to introduce topics > other than those which have perhaps held sway here for some time (as I > recently noted in another thread I have begun off-list discussions with > several members of the forum on how to best do that). But I do not think > that forum members will be much apt to begin posting if they feel that they > are being assessed as mere 'opinion' sharers by those who opine that only > scientific inquiries are legitimate in this forum. Ransdell wrote: > > > > *There is no standing agenda except the promotion of philosophical > conversation of the sort which one would expect from people with a special > interest in Peirce and of other communication in support of that. Thus > discussion should be Peirce-related but not necessarily on Peirce, and the > working test for relevance would simply be a plausible explanation of why > the topic in question should be under discussion on a list called > "PEIRCE-L: The Philosophy of Charles Peirce", given that people subscribe > to such lists with some more or less definite expectations about > subject-matter in mind.* > > > > > > I'd emphasize two points in Joe's comment above: 1) that there isn't a > "standing agenda" in this forum, 2) but only Peirce-related "philosophical > conversation," and not even "necessarily on Peirce." So, while I consider > the kind of inquiry along Peircean principles which you describe and with > which you and some others have been engaged here of some importance, I do > not think that such inquiry need--nor even should--be seen as the only > permissible activity in this forum. Quite the contrary. > > > > In short, not every thought offered here need present itself as a > "testable hypothesis," so that posts need not necessarily involve > statements " proper to a scientific inquiry." List members should feel > free to discuss *anything* Peirce-related (see the Ransdell quote just > above), and this could include, for example, posts relating to his > biography and his associations and influences on others (William James, > John Dewey, Lady Welby, Russell, through them, Wittgenstein, etc.), his > pragmatism generally, including its actual and potential application to > other disciplines (and not only to the sciences but also the arts, society, > etc.), his categories (list member Mike Bergman's book on the application > of Peirce--especially the categories--is due to be published this Fall), > his pragmatism in consideration of moral philosophy, politics, etc. > > > > So, contra your view of the list, Gary f, I do not see Peirce-L as > *essentially* a "community of inquiry," and even as I have found the > inquiry being done here over the past few years by folk like yourself, > valuable and really, quite remarkable. So, while I hope that such inquiry > will continue and deepen, as moderator of this forum I wish to heartily > encourage forum members to introduce *any Peirce-related material > whatsoever* with no sense that it might be rejected out of hand as not > offering "testable hypotheses." > > > > Turning now to your concluding comments, I am very eager to inquire with > you on the intriguing notion of Peirce's comments that not only the > interpretant but also the object of the sign may be the sign itself. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator--except for the final sentence > just above). > > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > *718 482-5690* > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gary R, list, > > I don’t think there’s any question that the subscribers to this list are a > community of peers. But I do think it’s become clear that there is more > than one community *within* this community. > > There is one community engaged in *inquiry* about Peirce’s work, his > *system*, if we may use that term (as Peirce himself did). Being engaged > in *inquiry* means that members of *this* community are working toward > the *truth* about Peirce’s system: “Every man is fully satisfied that > there is such a thing as truth, or he would not ask any question” (CP > 5.211). This implies that when an “interpretation” of Peirce is presented > to the community, members read it as at least a *candidate* for a *testable > hypothesis* — testable by any and all members of the community of > inquiry, who are all peers in that sense. As with other positive sciences, > the testing is done inductively by observing the facts and comparing them > with the hypothesis. The facts consist of Peirce’s texts — not that > everything he says in them is factual, of course, but *it is a fact in > every case that Peirce wrote what he wrote* at the time and in the > context that he wrote it. A single test involves a judgment as to whether > the hypothesis explains the text, or at least is fully compatible with it. > But as usual with induction, the testing must consist of *multiple* tests > against *multiple* texts, and the tests must be done independently of one > another. This is the normal way of building a scientific (i.e. fallible) > consensus about the viability of an explanatory hypothesis. And as usual, > the economy of research applies: each of the peers in the community of > inquiry has to decide whether a given candidate for testability is worth > the time and trouble of testing it further. > > It’s become clear lately that many (perhaps most) members of the peirce-l > community are not interested in this kind of inquiry, and belong instead to > a community interested mainly in the exchange of opinions, either about > Peirce’s system or about other topics they associate with Peirce. When > members of this community express opinions about, or offer > “interpretations” of, Peirce, these are meant to be taken as vague > impressions or reformulations, not as candidates for testable hypotheses; > and I think it’s a good idea for the posters to mark these opinions as > such, as Edwina has suggested. This way their statements will not be > subjected to the abductive or inductive truth-testing which is proper to a > scientific inquiry, but only to agreement, disagreement or comment by those > peers who are interested in the subject. > > Members of peirce-l are of course not limited to the one community or the > other (and no doubt there are other overlapping subcommunities that I > haven’t mentioned), so all the more important to mark a private opinion as > such, rather than as a proposal for public inquiry. For instance: > everything I’ve said above represents my opinion about the functioning of > the list as a community of peers. > > However, speaking as part of community of *inquiry*, I was intrigued by > your quote, Gary: [[ "A sign is also intended to determine, in a mind or > elsewhere, a sign of the same object; and this *interpretant* of the sign > may be the very sign itself. . ." ]] I don’t recall ever hearing this > from Peirce before, so I did some digging and found that it comes from MS > 9, which is obviously a partial draft of what became the “New Elements” > essay, and therefore probably written not long after the Lowell lectures of > 1903. And on that same page, Peirce wrote that not only the interpretant > but also the “object of the sign may be the very sign itself.” I won’t go > any further into this now, but I think it’s (yet another) clue that might > get us closer to the truth about Peirce’s system. So if and when I post > about it further, I’ll be acting as a member of the community of *inquiry* > which is a subset of Peirce-l. I assume there is no objection to that kind > of post, i.e. that none of us wish to block the way of inquiry. > > 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 .
