BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I'm going to reject your view that I 'oppose almost in principle'
the research known as speculative grammar, which is research into the
nature of a sign as symbol and the nature of symbols ..to their
interpretants.
I think that my published work in this area, focused on the
relations and categories within the triad, rejects your opinion of
such an opposition.
Furthermore - I think that the discussion between Auke and JAS [in
which I have participated] focuses on terminology and this
'speculative grammar' with the debate between how many interpretants
are actually operative in the Peircean framework -. This is an
important discussion, for my whole point about terminology is that it
is not enough to simply define the terms. One has to examine their
functionality in the 'real pragmatic world'. That's why, for example,
this discussion between Auke and JAS is important - because the
increased variety of Interpretants increases the capacity of the
semiosic action to provide diversity and complexity. And that's why
we keep asking for examples!
On another point - it should be pointed out that a published article
[my own included] does not mean that the content is 'the truth'! I'm
very sure that you have - as have I - often been a reviewer for
scholarly articles to be published in peer-reviewed journals. The
normal criteria for publication is whether the article is coherent,
well-written, and referenced - but that's all. I would never, and I'm
very sure you would never as well - judge an article as to whether or
not I personally agreed with the argument, with the content, with the
approach or felt it was 'right' or 'the truth'. . Such decisions must
be left up to the wider 'community of scholars' - and never to the
reviewer.
Edwina
On Sat 25/04/20 1:58 AM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
John, List,
I so thoroughly disagree with you that at this point there's not
much more to be said. Your arguments contra Jon Alan Schmidt have
been consistently methodological, not at all substantive. And as far
as I can see, you have conclusively shown yourself to have a double
standard in that regard. It would indeed be easy to cite many, many
examples of this hypocritical double standard and, indeed, many have
been cited on this list. I would certainly not be loathe to rehearse
some of them if need be.
More to the point, there are those scholars who rather completely
disagree with your and Edwina's (mis)characterization of Jon's work.
One need only look over the last couple of decades of articles
published in Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society to see
that some (but hardly all, since his philosophical interests are
rather far-ranging) of Jon's work falls into a category of Peirce
scholarship, semeiotic grammar, which you and Edwina seem to oppose
almost in principle, but which is seen by many Peirce scholars -- and
to this day -- as essential, even quintessential, in the understanding
of what Peirce's philosophy involves, the changes in his terminology
often being expressions of the conceptual growth -- or fine turning
-- of important, even crucial philosophical concepts; and not only in
his logic as semeiotic, but also in his phenomenology and metaphysics.
To ignore such conceptual development expressed in Peirce's develop of
terminological subtlety seems to me to smack of intellectual laziness.
If Jon can hold in memory many of Peirce's semeiotic grammatical
distinctions and their relations to each other (something which I
certainly struggle to do), well all the more power to him. And let us
not forget that semeiotic grammar is the first of the three branches
of logic as semeiotic which Peirce posits and develops.
Your seeming rush to 'application' is, as I now see it, based on
your hubristic (there's no more accurate term for it) estimation that
you already grasp what's important in Peirce's philosophy, indeed,
that you have come to 'determine' what it *is*, something which you
accuse others of doing even while they -- Jon in this case -- much
more modestly pursue abductions which their research has brought them
to: no more. This is nothing short of hypocritical and, so, from the
standpoint of the ethics of science, repugnant.
I might note as a sign of Jon's work being seen as of growing
interest and value to the Peirce community more generally than you
and Edwina see it, that a paper of his is scheduled to appear in an
upcoming edition of Transactions, the premiere journal of Peircean
scholarship. And it is my prediction that Jon's work in semeiotic and
metaphysics (to mention just two areas of his interest) will grow in
importance within the Peirce community at large. You may not
understand and/or value it, but I and others do: it's just that
simple.
This is not to suggest that on-list and off-list that Jon and I have
agreed on everything. Far from it. Indeed, in our off-list discussions
(with Gary Fuhrman) on Peirce's conception of Time, both Gary and I
have sometimes very much disagreed with Jon as to the character and
importance of phenomenology vs the mathematics and logic of time. But
I have never found him to be anything but receptive to deeply
considering arguments which we have presented to him. Of course he
puts forth his own strong arguments and strongly defend the -- until
he is convinced of another's argumentation. Yet in papers on Peirce's
conception of time which he has been developing, it is clear that he
has significantly modified his views as he came to seen the value of
Gary and my phenomenological perspectives (which, by the way, are
quite different from each other's). In short, he is not a rigid
theoretical dogmatist. Far from it. I'd say, the opposite of it. He
is certainly significantly more humble than any of his critics on
this list despite their arguments to the contrary.
In conclusion, I think it would behoove you -- at least in this
forum -- to work to develop you own semeiotic rather than continuing
to attempt to denigrate Jon's, an attempt which if persisted in I am
certain will fail. And to offer yet another prediction, I do not
think that future scholars will look at such denigration of another
scholar's work favorably.
Best,
Gary R
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
[1]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM John F. Sowa wrote:
Gary,
As I said before, I believe that JAS has been trying to force
Peirce's writings into a rigid box. Peirce repeatedly said that his
ideas were constantly growing. In fact, that is why he was unable to
finish his many book projects: as he starts writing, he gets so many
new ideas that earlier chapters need to be rewritten. When he does
that, he needs to rewrite the later ones. That leads to an endless
cycle of revisions.
But Jon's project is static. It's impossible for any static
project to capture the open-ended growth of Peirce's ideas.
GR> seeing John's self-contradictions spelled out was pretty
astonishing, and revealing, to me as well. They've been pointed out
before; I've done so myself on-list and off-list, apparently to no
avail.
No! When anybody points out a mistake that I made, I immediately
correct it.
But neither you nor JAS has ever found a self-contradiction in
anything I wrote. There are some points where you disagreed with my
interpretation of what Peirce wrote. The issues are rather subtle,
and I've been busy with other writings. When they're published,
I'll show how they explain the issues that Peirce was addressing.
As for that off-list note, I did not respond because the note was so
hopelessly wrong that there was no point in saying anything.
As for my reasons for supporting the comments by Edwina, Auke, and
others, the reasons are simple: they have a more open-ended attitude
that is closer in spirit to what Peirce was writing, Even when I
have some quibbles about what they write, they are more willing to
discuss the issues and evaluate the alternatives.
I find their manner of discussion a breath of fresh air in
comparison to Jon's rigid box. I have often pointed out some serious
misinterpretations that Jon made. But he never admits any
alternative.
John
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
