BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

        The words of 'action' and 'interaction' are not scientific terms.
They are part of natural language.

        The words of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness etc ARE scientific
terms because they do refer to a scientific conception and do have
single exact meanings.

        One can use natural language in describing scientific terms - such
as 'a dyadic action' is operative within Secondness. AND, one can 
say that a 'triadic action'  or a 'manifestation action' is operative
in Thirdness.

        I consider, as I said, that the restriction of the use of natural
language within Peircean research and an insistence that the words in
natural language are instead, scientific terms and confined to
singular meanings - inhibits and restricts Peircean research to a
small set of cultists. That's not what Peirce, to me, is all about.

 On Fri 10/08/18  9:40 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt
 Edwina, List:
 Perhaps you missed my post last night quoting Peirce's own
unambiguous opinion about the merits of exact terminology in all
scientific (including semiotic) inquiry.
  CSP:  As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place,
desirable for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary
furnishing a family of cognate words for each scientific conception,
and that each word should have a single exact meaning, unless its
different meanings apply to objects of different categories that can
never be mistaken for one another. To be sure, this requisite might
be understood in a sense which would make it utterly impossible. For
every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no
mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but its
meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old
ones. But the effort of all should be to keep the essence of every
scientific term unchanged and exact; although absolute exactitude is
not so much as conceivable. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264; 1903) 
This is obviously not a case of someone unfamiliar with Peirce's
thought using natural language on the List and being criticized for
it; I am confident that all of us would be much more charitable than
that.  However, I think that it is quite reasonable to expect those
who are very familiar with Peirce's thought to adjust their use of
language in List discussions accordingly, for the sake of clarity and
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran [1] - [2]  
 On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
        Gary R, list

        To reject the use of natural language in the study and use of Peirce
confines this study and use to essentially an isolate cult of
specialists. No-one else can explore Peirce because they will be
jumped on for 'misuse of terms'. And so- we see how Peircean analysis
becomes confined and owned by almost an elite set of people who reject
open exploration of Peircean semiosic research unless and until the
discussants 'use the correct words'. It becomes almost an insider's
cult, where one focuses on which term to use, the year it was
introduced, the exact references and so on. That's not what I like to
see. And I don't think you want to see that either. 

        There ARE indeed specific technical terms that one has to learn
within Peircean research - such as the categories [Firstness,
Secondness, Thirdness and the terms of the parts of the semiosic
action [DO, IO, R, II, DI, FI]…..But to insist that the words we
use in basic common natural language cannot be used  - because in
Peirce, they have strictly singular meanings, is, in my view, not
merely isolationist but inhibits the study and use of Peirce.

        After all - to say that the word 'action' cannot be used when one is
exploring the pragmatics of Thirdness is, I think, unreasonable. It
denies the FACT that 'something is going on' - and the basic
'something going on' IS an action! A particular action within the
format of Thirdness. JAS informed us that 'what is going on in
Thirdness' is a 'manifestation'. But, in natural language, a
manifestation is AN ACTION!. And yet, we are told that we cannot use
the term. 

        I also reject the isolation of the term 'semiotics' to purely
intellectual discussions of logic and metaphysica - The field of
semiosis in my view INCLUDES all the pragmatic examination of its
functionality in economics, biology, physics, societal. I disagree
that if one uses the term 'semiotics', then, examples and analysis is
confined to the purely intellectual and not its pragmatic

        My view is that if someone has a particular personal and research
focus on terminology - fine, that's his focus. But to insist that one
cannot use natural language in the study of Peirce and must instead
move natural language out of its meaning and into 'Peircean-only'
usage inhibits and prevents the use of Peirce in the broader study of
what is going on in the world. I repeat - I consider the Peircean
semiosic framework a powerful analytic tool for examining what is
going on - in the real world - and I think that a 'cultlike hold on
language' prevents many people from using that framework. 


        On Thu 09/08/18 11:30 PM , Gary Richmond [4]
 Mike, Jon, Edwina, List,
 Mike wrote: "Are not 'binding' and 'sense' expressions of action,
both Peirce's words for Thirdness? There are many ways to interpret
natural language, including what is meant by the word 'action'." 
 Please offer some context and some textual support for your notion
that 'binding' and 'sense' are employed as expressions of action in
any of Peirce's discussion of 3ns. I think that this is not only
highly unlikely, but actually would contradict most everything he had
to say about not only 3ns but also 2ns.
 Whatever you might mean by "natural language" in the present
context, we are concerned here with technical scientific terminology,
specifically Peirce's in consideration of his three universal
categories. Action-Reaction and Interaction are concepts clearly
connected in Peirce's phenomenology and semeiotic to 2ns, so that it
seems peculiarly obdurate to suggest that they are not, that they may
be associated in any integral way with 3ns. You will certainly have to
offer more support for your comment than your mere assertion that it
is so. 
  Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York718 482-5690 

PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to