Auke wrote: RE: I would formulate the goal not as looking for an
explanation. For me, such an enterprise ought to aid in getting
better immediate objects of the dynamical object that is being
studied. Diagrams are excellent means to come to grips with complex
systems by supporting and organizing the analysis, although it seems
safe to assume they always will lag behind and are incomplete. It is
an aid, not an answer.
Edwina: But 'getting better immediate objects of the DO' IS a mode
of explanation. And I agree that diagrams, as 'images-of-thought' are
excellent ANALYTIC AND EXPLANATORY methods. But there's no explanation
and no analysis going on here - there's just endless lists and
outlines of terminology and rigid definitions of these terms. What's
the function of these terms - if they don't explain anything???
On Sun 17/02/19 10:50 AM , "Auke van Breemen" [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, list,
E wrote:
I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop an
isolate framework of the work of Peirce - a particular framework
based around a purely intellectual outline of interactions and strict
terminological definitions which in my opinion both utterly miss the
basic point of Peircean semiosis - which is its capacity to analyze
and explain the dynamic, adaptive, living infrastructure and
processes of the real world. These abstract interactions and
definitions have, so far, been unable to explain these processes of
the real world.
RE: I would formulate the goal not as looking for an explanation.
For me, such an enterprise ought to aid in getting better immediate
objects of the dynamical object that is being studied. Diagrams are
excellent means to come to grips with complex systems by supporting
and organizing the analysis, although it seems safe to assume they
always will lag behind and are incomplete. It is an aid, not an
answer.
Auke
Van: Edwina Taborsky
Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 15:44
Aan: Peirce-L
; Gary Richmond
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy
Gary R wrote:
"At first blush, I would tend to agree with you, Auke, that there is
no good reason to believe that Peirce "abandoned" "the three-category,
ten-Sign taxonomy of 1903." …
… But, again, I see Peirce's work as evolving so that, and
contra Tom Short for example, I don't see Peirce "abandoning" much at
all. And when he finds himself as having clearly been in error, he
tends to explicitly state that along with his corrected view (in
years past I've offered several examples of this). Peirce is
constantly experimenting; but, in my opinion, one needn't take an
experiment late in his life as necessarily "abandoning" those
undertaken earlier and the principles derived from them. "
-------------------
I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop an
isolate framework of the work of Peirce - a particular framework
based around a purely intellectual outline of interactions and strict
terminological definitions which in my opinion both utterly miss the
basic point of Peircean semiosis - which is its capacity to analyze
and explain the dynamic, adaptive, living infrastructure and
processes of the real world. These abstract interactions and
definitions have, so far, been unable to explain these processes of
the real world.
Edwina
-----------------------------
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 .
