Dear list, I like where this conversation is heading..
Best, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, list > > Yes - I obviously agree; I think one can get trapped in the isolation of > words and should instead, consider their function in the actual world. As > Peirce noted: > > "In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one > should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by > necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these > consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception". CP > 5.9]and 5.402 and 5.422. > > Pragmatism is, as you point out, the key method of 'making our ideas > clear' [see note 1, CP: 5.9] > > Again, "the possible practical consequences of a concept constitute the > sum total of the concept" 5.27 > > As Peirce wrote, "Nothing new can ever be learned by analyzing > definitions" 5.393. Certainly, "our existing beliefs can be set in order by > this process" [ibid] but, this doesn't lead us to understanding what is > going on. > > Obviously, my preferred focus for the pragmatic nature of semiosis is > biosemiotics, but, I'm also interested in economic and societal realms. > > Edwina > > > > On Thu 06/09/18 4:01 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent: > > Jon, list, > > I agree with Edwina, because to make my ideas clearer, I need to check > them with real-life-affairs, such as biosemiotics, and other special > sciences like physics. Especially if I want to overcome the somehow > ever-present idea of mind-matter-duality, to explain it away by replacing > it with mind-monism, would be to reconstruct it with the idea of > spatiotemporal scales. E.g. that matter is effete mind, is a time-scale > thing, I would say. And therefore it helps very much, I think, to regard > biosemiotics, with its different time scales in the evolution of > matter/energy, organisms, animals, mammals, humans, and cultural habits. > So, only speaking for myself, I get good aha-experiences more likely by > switching between cenoscopy and idioscopy (or between pure reason and > examples from experience) all the time from the start. > > Best, > Helmut > > 06. September 2018 um 19:31 Uhr > "Jon Alan Schmidt" wrote: > > Edwina, John S., List: > > As I have said before (more than once), my own purpose in focusing so much > on Peirce's concepts and terminology in logic as semeiotic is not for its own > sake, but primarily for the purpose of making our ideas clear. This is a > necessary and important step before we can properly identify and > explicate the resulting "pragmatic applications" in other fields, > beginning with Metaphysics and continuing on to the Special Sciences such > as biosemiotics. After all, Peirce defined pragmatism as "no attempt to > determine any truth of things," but rather "merely a method of ascertaining > the meanings of hard words and of abstract concepts" (CP 5.464, EP 2:400; > 1907). > > Also, as far as I know, no one on the List is advocating "Platonic > idealism." Why keep bringing it up? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> John, list >> >> Yes, but I'm trying to emphasize, or perhaps remind ourselves, that >> Peircean semiotics is not expressed simply in language and/or logic, but in >> its pragmatic application to material life. That is - there are three >> 'parts' so to speak; language/logic/pragmatic application. >> >> My concern is that much of the focus of our examination of Peirce is >> often on terminology, on which term he used for..___. Since Peirce often >> changed these terms, then, to me, they are not the vital ground of Peircean >> semiosis and even sidesteps the fundamental nature of Peircean semiotics - >> which is its pragmaticism. >> >> And an ever-present danger when we confine ourselves to this rhetoric >> [but not logic] - is that easy slip into Platonic idealism - which actually >> denies pragmaticism because it separates Mind and Matter. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Thu 06/09/18 11:35 AM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent: >> >> On 9/6/2018 11:07 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >> > I agree with your linking Peirce's semiotic with his logic, but >> > my concern is that one can lose the vital nature of Peirce; namely, >> > that his logic-as-formal semiotic is a pragmatic system. >> >> I agree with your concerns. I know many logicians who get lost >> in the technical details and ignore all the issues about relating >> logic to language, thought, and life. >> >> I also admit that it's much easier to write many pages of ordinary >> language than to write a few lines of precisely stated mathematics >> or mathematical logic. Peirce knew that. But he also knew that >> precision required a restatement in terms of some version of logic. >> >> Basic point: It's vastly easier to translate logic to language, >> than to translate language to logic. But the exercise of writing >> the logic is necessary for precision. >> >> 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 [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 .
