At least people include you in their replies. amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I think it's a serious issue. We used to as you say, be able to > disagree with abandon on this list, but that has changed into a situation > where we either follow the mantra or - we are 'unPeircean'. That is, > disagreements in interpretation or analysis are no longer accepted as > such, but are viewed as 'violations of the truth-of-Peirce'. And that > moves a list up against a wall. > > Edwina > > > > On Sun 03/02/19 10:40 AM , Stephen Curtiss Rose [email protected] sent: > > I am laughing Edwina because we used to be able to disagree with abandon > but all we do now is agree that something has happened. I think it is > nothing that is here -- but something in the cosmosphere -- the point at > which the academy reached its limit and C. P. Snow smiled in Heaven. Life > goes on. As does continuity. And they are not exactly the same. > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with Stephen's concerns. I think that the repeated focus on >> terminology, with the agenda of insisting that it's 'this term' and not >> 'that term' obscures and makes almost irrelevant the real point of Peircean >> semiosis which is, in my view, as Stephen points out, 'that the universe is >> information'. >> >> It is this 'fact' which is the basis of Peircean semiosis and I consider >> that this is the key area of analysis. Unfortunately, this list at this >> time, doesn't have that same focus. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> On Sun 03/02/19 8:44 AM , Stephen Curtiss Rose [email protected] sent: >> >> Peirce is relevant for having suggested all thought is in signs. Pierce >> fuels folk who are looking past he could see but where he knew of. This was >> known when this list began. It is lost now in the back and forth which >> continues despite its impossibility which you point out. The result of his >> root premise is the inevitable suggestion that the universe is information >> and that this is the stuff of the universe. >> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+universe+is+information >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:05 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> List, >>> >>> Some days ago we enjoyed the discussion of two related issues. >>> 1. Is the Peircean semiotic terminology is too esoteric for the world at >>> large >>> 2. The value of Peircean semiotics is such that we need to use common >>> language in order to have it achieve the influence it deserves. >>> >>> I wonder whether this is the right way of looking at the problem. Maybe >>> Short is right when he typifies Peirce's semiotic endeavor as much groping >>> with little conclusions. If he is right it is not the esoteric terminology, >>> that prevents semiotics the get the influence it ought to have. That >>> terminology may prove to be technical language needed for a grammar of the >>> speculative faculty, which is not confined to the mind according to Peirce, >>> hence argument becomes delome. >>> >>> If Short is right it is the lack of being a well defined research >>> program (Lakatos) that is the problem and not the terms of the semiotic >>> trade. >>> >>> I hold it that the conclusion of the exchange between Jon Alen and John >>> Sowa points in this direction: >>> >>> JAS: >>> > I believe that we are now at the point where we will simply have to >>> > accept our disagreement and move on. >>> >>> John: >>> That is certainly true. The evidence shows that Peirce defined a seme >>> as a predicate or quasi-predicate. Continuity cannot have any effect on >>> that definition. There is nothing more to say. >>> >>> (To be clear about my position I side with Jon Alan on this issue) >>> >>> Of course, given the value of Peirce's groping, it is worth considering >>> his considerations, but in the end, if semiotics is the have any influence >>> at all it is because it is transformed into a promising research program >>> and not because of what Peirce did contribute to that enterprise. What we >>> need is a semiotic definition of the (argument) delome. How can we >>> explicate with the semiotic terminology the process of semiosis that is >>> captured in logic by the term argument? >>> >>> In other words, if we look at Peirce's intellectual development we may >>> find many different attempts to sort things out, we may look at the changes >>> as improvements/distractions, but we must not forget that the different >>> terms introduced may co-exist as different angles on the same object. Both >>> possibilities can be pointed at in Peirce's writings. I think the >>> experimentation with the first trichotomy of sign aspects delivers an >>> example of differences in perspective: >>> >>> On the terminological level Peirce experimented >>> >>> He suggested: >>> A (1) potisign, (2) actisign, and (3) famisign, as an >>> alternative trichotomy for >>> B (1) qualisign, (2) sinsign and (3) legisign, but he also >>> introduced >>> C (1) tuone , (2) token and (3) type. >>> >>> In each of this cases he looks in my opinion at the matter from a >>> different angle >>> With A we look at signs from the perspective of an interaction of an >>> interpreting system and a sign, it opens up the communicative perspective, >>> With B we look at signs from the perspective of signs we find in our >>> world, it opens up the sign structure perspective >>> With C. we look at signs from the perspective of the interpretation of a >>> sign, how it affects the interpreting system, it associates signs with the >>> phaneroscopic endeavour. >>> >>> A legisign needs not to be a famisign for any given interpreter. The >>> exchange Jon Alan and I had about the type could be resolved by taking >>> recourse to the type-legisign distinction, by admitting Jan Alan is right >>> in his interpretation of type, which is informed by phaneroscopic >>> considerations, a similarity in tokens, and reserve legisign for my opinion >>> which allows different tokens to be taken as the same. For instance when we >>> deal with the spoken and written forms. Familiarity may overcome >>> differences in form by an established law; because two different forms >>> raise the same symbol habitually. It acts as a same sign. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Auke van Breemen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
