Gary R, Jon, list,
+1
This is another thread that has devolved into silliness. No
one is trying to deny Peirce's technical terms, no one is being
obdurate, and no one is saying anything other than we use
natural language to communicate, and it has vagaries of
interpretation.
We could say that the phrase 'triadic action' approaches
being a technical term, and we cannot deny that Peirce used it,
especially in his later years when supposedly his assertions
have more value than his earlier ones. (Not to mention other
references to mediating action which are not specifically labeled
'triadic action,' which I am sure number many more than two references.)
Furthermore, we can quote about these 'triadic actions' and then
deny them, claiming they are all just 'relations' that should be
expressed as dyadic actions. Picking and choosing which Peirce
quotes to insist are the absolute truth while denying the clear
language of other quotes is not a good way to advance scholarly
discussion.
I will comment no further on this thread.
Mike
On 8/10/2018 8:49 AM, Edwina Taborsky
wrote:
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.
Edwina
On Fri 10/08/18 9:40 AM , Jon
Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
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
consistency.
Regards,
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
