On 1/29/2019 8:49 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
my view is that Peirce's analytic framework is logical, rational and yes, extremely simple, even basic, in its pragmatic workability to explain the cognitive, biological and physico-chemical realms. Insisting on 'this term' and not 'that term' moves this powerful pragmatic analysis out of the hands of 'the people' - and into a small closed group. What's the point of that?
I strongly agree. In the Google excerpts from his book, Bellucci noted that Peirce kept revising his terminology up to the end. He also said that Peirce himself admitted that many of his terms were tentative. One reason why there are so many is that he kept changing his mind about the best way to make his point. Books and articles like Bellucci's are important for a deeper and more precise understanding what Peirce wrote. But the most important task is to demonstrate to the world how Peirce's ideas can clarify and enrich our understanding of the critical issues of the 21st c. I'm sure that if Peirce were alive today, he would be writing about *both* theoretical and practical issues: Just look at the huge number of complex semeiotic issues in any newspaper, TV news, WWW news, blogs, tweets, and reviews. Peirce would be actively contributing to all those debates. He can't do that today, but we can. 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 .
