BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
There is absolutely nothing in my outline that can't be found in
Peirce.
That includes the semiosic process of DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI and the three
categorical modes and their 'genuine/degenerate modes of 1-1; 2-2;2-1;
3-3; 3-2; 3-1.
And the ontological cut which differentiates internal from external
[such differentiation is basic 2ns]; and the epistemological cut
which differentiates local information/semiosic process [1ns, 2ns]
from non-local information which is 3ns, supplying continuity and
synchronicity.
What is needed, in my view, is to move one's use of Peirce beyond
academic discussions of his specific terminology and text - and see
how his actual analysis applies to the real world and how it can
explain the functional operations of this real world. Such an action
means that you can use different terms for these same processes [eg.
explaining how continuity is achieved by 'codification' rather than
'Thirdness; how the real world operates as a self-organized
complexity generating its own adaptations rather than using the terms
of Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants]...and so on. But- it's the
same basic analytic infrastructure - and my view is that Peirce's
full outline can be used with great results.
Edwina
On Thu 18/07/19 12:15 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
John, List:
JFS: My *only* complaint is about the word 'harmonize' and the
claim that your theory is a harmonization of what Peirce intended ...
If you called your theory Peircean, I would have no quarrel. But if
you call it Peirce's or claim that it is what Peirce intended, I
can't let it stand.
I keep asking, and you keep failing to answer--when and where have
I ever made such a claim? It is no more acceptable to attribute
views to me that I have not stated than to do so with Peirce. On the
other hand, Edwina posted the following a few days ago.
ET: As noted - I think that this basic analytic infrastructure as
developed by Peirce - is THE powerful semiosic analytic tool - and
wish more use would be made of it!
The "analytic framework" that she described in that post was not
"developed by Peirce" in that particular form, even if it was
inspired by some of his ideas and thus qualifies as "Peircean." Why
the double standard?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:56 AM John F Sowa < [email protected] [3]>
wrote:
Jon and Gene,
Jon
> We have made our respective cases for our positions
I have no quarrel with your positions. My *only* complaint
is about the word 'harmonize' and the claim that your theory is
a harmonization of what Peirce intended.
Peirce himself could not harmonize his own work, and it's
impossible for anybody else to reconstruct what Peirce would
have or might have added to his available MSS.
> JFS: My concerns: CP 6.24 is quite clear as Peirce stated it;
> there is no need for a paraphrase to make it clearer. But this
> paraphrase distorts CP 6.24 in several ways:
>
> JAS: I have already addressed your concerns, and I continue to
> reject the charge of distortion.
CP 6.24-25 is nuanced, tentative, and qualified. Deleting the
two occurrences of 'seems' makes a sharper claim. The last
sentence of 6.25 qualifies the claim by saying that more research
-- "with mathematical clearness and precision" -- is required.
Without that qualification, the paraphrase suggests that Peirce
had completed his research. Then the word 'unambiguously' turns
the suggestion into an assertion.
When Hartshorne edited CP vol. 6 in the late 1920s, he knew
that Einstein had gone far beyond Peirce in developing a theory
of the space, time, and physics of the universe. To his enormous
credit, Peirce had anticipated many aspects of relativity and
quantum mechanics. But Einstein and others did the work.
Hartshorne was also listening to Whitehead's lectures and reading
Whitehead's books while he was working on Peirce's MSS. He saw
that Whitehead had independently developed many Peircean-style
insights and had integrated them with more recent theories of
relativity and quantum mechanics.
Hartshorne (1995) was his retrospective view of the thirty years
of progress from Peirce's CP vol. 6 to Whitehead's book,
_Process and Reality_. Potter (1995) agreed with Hartshorne
about Peirce's "strengths and weaknesses". I recommend their
articles in _Peirce and Contemporary Thought_, edited by
K. L. Ketner. I also recommend the dissertation by Brioschi:
https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/264520/367902/phd_unimi_R09823.pdf
[4]
Note that Hartshorne called his process theology Whiteheadian,
not Whitehead's. If you called your theory Peircean, I would
have no quarrel. But if you call it Peirce's or claim that it
is what Peirce intended, I can't let it stand.
Gene
> EXPERT TESTIMONY
> The opinion stated in court by an expert witness. An admissible
> expert opinion given in court.
Thanks for that correction. I admit that I should have been
more precise. In a court of law, opinions are admissible
*provided that* the person who states the opinions is available
for cross-examination by the opposing side.
John
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/264520/367902/phd_unimi_R09823.pdf
-----------------------------
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 .
