BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - I'm not sure if the point is that one 'is' either focused
on theory OR pragmatics.
My view is that I don't see how one can be slotted into such an
Either-Or scenario. That is, if one is interested primarily in the
theoretical framework - and I see no problem with that. Indeed,
clarifying theory is an important area of research - but - if one is
interested in just the theoretical framework, then, that same person
is in a situation where they might have problems with how another
person - who is interested in the pragmatics of the theoretical
framework - applies Peircean theory. And surely that Theorist must be
aware that theories must be put to the test, so to speak and moved
into examining the real world.
Now - if this is the case, then Person A, the Theorist, might say to
Person B, the Pragmatist: "No, no, Peirce doesn't mean what you say -
here's the text; he wrote this-and-that'. And the Pragmatist might
reply: 'I disagree with your interpretation - can you give me your
example of what Peirce meant by that text? ….The Theorist might
reply: Sorry- I just do theory...
And we get nowhere. It's a difficult situation. I don't think that
pure theory can stand on its own - just as pure incidents can't
operate without a unifying theory to explain their functions. As
Peirce said - we live in two worlds; fact and fancy or - our world is
made up of matter and mind. He was quite adamant at rejecting the
Cartesian separation of the two - and I think that Peircean research
has to, as he did, involve itself in both worlds.
Edwina
On Sat 02/05/20 11:46 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
Jon Alan Schmidt quoted Gary Fuhrman and then wrote:
GF: Maybe I’m just not equipped to think like a mathematician
about semiosis.
JAS: And maybe--even probably--I am just not equipped to think like
a special (physical or psychical) scientist about semeiosis. Inquiry
benefits from both perspectives, and few are as adept at both as
Peirce evidently was.
I just don't see what the problem is here. Peirce did a tremendous
amount of abstract theorizing in developing his semeiotic that, from
my perspective, it is principally that and importantly that. How can
any serious Peirce scholar deny the value of Peirce's semeiotic
theorizing? (Btw, I'm not at all suggesting that Gary Fuhrman is one
of those persons who deny the value of semeiotic theory; not at all!
It's just that, as he's remarked, it's not something he's, at least
currently, much interested in.)
And let's not forget that Peirce even stated that one truly can't be
an adept servant of both masters, theory and practice as he put it
then. They require different "skill sets" as we might put it today.
That Peirce himself was the exception to his own rule is just more
evidence of his extraordinary genius.
If someone on the list isn't interested in semeiotic theorizing --
Peirce's or any contemporary scholar's (although I personally don't
see how any serious Peirce scholar can completely ignore those
theoretical underpinnings) -- then let that person merely skip or
delete those posts. But to argue that there is no reason for or right
to such theorizing is simply unreasonable, strictly illogical, and
simply absurd.
And those of us who do appreciate the theory -- and, in my view,
the theoretical advances which Robert Marty, for example, has had a
distinguished career making, and which Jon has,in my opinion,
recently been working toward (which, btw, in his intellectual modesty
he's tended to refer to, properly I'd say, as guesses, hypotheses, and
abductions) would wish that those who do not find semeiotic theory,
theoretical grammar, and the like of much or any interest simply
ignore those who do, stop their pointless criticism on their,
frankly, untenable principles, and get on with their own work.
Best,
Gary
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 8:57 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Gary F., List:
GF: I simply find myself unable to come up with an individual
experience that could be referred to as a “sign token” and has no
context.
Indeed, all our individual experiences with individual sign tokens
have real contexts. Speculative grammar abstracts from those
different experiences and their different contexts to ascertain what
all signs have in common. We can then say that something lacking any
of those essential characters is not a sign. That is precisely why I
exclude qualisigns--a quality in itself cannot represent something
else, so it cannot be a sign at all, only an "indefinite significant
character" of a sign token in which it inheres.
GF: Maybe I’m just not equipped to think like a mathematician
about semiosis.
And maybe--even probably--I am just not equipped to think like a
special (physical or psychical) scientist about semeiosis. Inquiry
benefits from both perspectives, and few are as adept at both as
Peirce evidently was.
GF: My apologies for laying my cuckoo egg in your (and Robert’s)
nest.
No apology necessary, I always appreciate your insights.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:07 AM wrote:
Jon, I see where you’re coming from. But when it comes to the
practice of theorizing, the Peirce advice that has most leverage on
me is this: “every kind of proposition is either meaningless or has
a real Secondness as its object. This is a fact that every reader of
philosophy should constantly bear in mind, translating every
abstractly expressed proposition into its precise meaning in
reference to an individual experience” (EP2:279). I simply find
myself unable to come up with an individual experience that could be
referred to as a “sign token” and has no context. Every example
of a sign that I can remember or imagine experiencing has some kind
of context which limits the kind of interpretant(s) it can generate.
Maybe I’m just not equipped to think like a mathematician about
semiosis. My apologies for laying my cuckoo egg in your (and
Robert’s) nest.
Gary f.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
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 .
