Ben and Gary,
The phrase "harmonize and synthesize" is not mine. Jon stated it
as his goal, many times over several years.
BN
I want to know what Peirce thought, and that is why I most value
what Jon is doing. John Sowa may be right that Peirce valued a
constantly growing thought process. Fine, and I recommend John
show that to us.
I agree completely. I appreciate Jon's selection of quotations,
and his *suggestions* about relationships among them. Sometimes I
agree with them. And sometimes I show that he's going out on a limb
to make dubious connections to support his preconceived "harmony".
All my objections would vanish if Jon would make one simple change:
replace every occurrence of 'harmony' with 'hypothesis'.
GR
Would you please finally tell us 1. what exactly you mean by
a "harmonized synthesis" and 2. why you so strenuously object to
it (whatever you mean by it, which is not at all clear, certainly
not to me)?
Since it's Jon's phrase, I'll let him say what he means by it. My
interpretation: Jon is trying to produce a a definitive version of
Peirce's philosophy.
As I wrote to Jon, it would be the height of hubris for anyone to
claim that they could accomplish a task that Peirce himself could
not complete. Peirce made several attempts to produce a definitive
version of his logic and semeiotic, but never finished them.
An example of good editing is Esposito's reorganized paragraphs
from all six versions of L75 to produce a continuous text. But he
never changed any sentence by Peirce or added any words of his own:
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/L75/intro/l75intro.htm
GR
please offer some quotations (cherry picked as you please) which
reflect someone here attempting this apparently grand "harmonized
synthesis"
Following are just a few of many, many occurrences of the word
'harmonize' in notes by JAS.
JAS to ET, 3 Nov 2016
Peirce changed his mind sometime between 1887-1888 and 1908. All
I have tried to show is that such an explanation is not necessary;
i.e., it is possible to harmonize everything that Peirce wrote about
the origin and order of our existing universe--and therefore preferable
to do so, rather than positing a discontinuity in the development of
his thought.
JAS to GF, 2 Aug 2018
ideally our different approaches to Peirce's texts and the ideas
that they convey will eventually converge on similar conclusions
more often than not. Eventually I will be going back to see whether
and how I can harmonize this recent line of thinking with my earlier
one that focused on Form/Matter/Entelechy.
JAS to GR, 29 Aug 2018
discerning its implications for the DO/IO distinction requires
further contemplation. I also still need to work out whether and
how it harmonizes with the different sense in which "the Dynamoid
[Dynamic] Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines
the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate [Final] Interpretant,
which determines the Effective [Dynamic] Interpretant, which determines
the Explicit [Immediate] Interpretant" (EP 2:481; 1908).
JAS to JR, 11 May 2019
My purpose (as usual) is to interpret Peirce by attempting to
harmonize each passage that I encounter with his corpus taken
as a whole, in accordance with my systematizing and regularizing
tendencies.
When I read that passage, I see red flags and hear a warning siren.
Jon is trying to force every quotation by Peirce into his preconceived
harmony. That violates every principle of Peirce's methodeutic.
Those words "systematizing and regularizing" imply new sentences and
changes to Peirce's sentences. Jon's many examples show those changes.
That goes far beyond anything Esposito did for his version of L75.
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 .
