BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Gary - thank you for your post. But - how does my expressing my view
that theory doesn't exist 'per se' but has to be 'tested' for its
fallibility [ ie, moved into seeing whether it can explain the real
world] ..how does this comment impose on others?? After all -
expressing an opinion is hardly an 'imposition'.
Of course Peirce developed theory ! Theory [3ns] is a basis for all
thought; my point is that the power of a theory rests within its power
of explanation of the real world; ie, explaining 2ns. I don't think
his list of the three sciences is ordinal in importance. Peircean
theory was never in isolation from the real world. ,,ie "A pure idea
without metaphor or other significant clothing is an onion without a
peel". EP2.392.
And pragmatism isn't just 'common-sense or just refers to the
'special sciences' but is integral to all; it is almost the
descriptive part of a proposition...It firmly locates the theory in
reality. As noted, it's the dependence of 3ns on 2ns and 1ns [EP2,
331]. I am NOT suggesting at all that scholars only pursue the
'special sciences'. What I am suggesting is that theory is fallible
and pragmatic and what I mean by that is that it functions within the
real world. So, semiosis is a powerful means of examining the real
world - and my concern is when we don't test our assumptions and our
theories and our models but merely assert them without enabling their
location in the real world.
Edwina
On Tue 12/05/20 10:04 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List,
Edwina, please do proceed with what you consider to be the kind of
inquiry that you consider to be most proper, or most important (or
however you conceive of it) on this list and off, your particular
'practical application' of theory emphasis certainly being valuable
and important.
Yet Peirce himself was interested in much more than 'practical
applications' of his theories, more even than pragmatism which, after
all, he sometimes characterized as but 'critical commonsense-ism'.
Indeed he was active in developing both the theory and practice of
many sciences, theoretical, special, and applied.
Let's look just at the Sciences of Discovery as he called them (and
which he also called, tellingly, Theoretical Science, and even Pure
Theoretical Sciences), all of which he did significant work in.
So, following the order of his Classification of Sciences (a part of
Science of Review, one of his three Grand Sciences, along with Science
of Discovery and Practical Science) Peirce worked in these: Pure
Mathematics; in Cenoscopic Science (scientific philosophy), he made
contributions in Phenomenology, Scientific Esthetics and Ethics, and
in all three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.
Note that the first of these three branches is Theoretical (or
Semeiotic) Grammar, the second, Critical Logic ("Logic as
logic"-CSP), the third Theoretical (or, Semeiotic) Rhetoric, where
many Peirce scholars, including me, place Pragmaticism. And, of
course, Peirce also did valuable work in Scientific Metaphysics to
complete the Theoretical Sciences.
And there can be no doubt that he also did extraordinary work in
several of the Special Sciences, the next branch in his
Classification, and in more than a few of the Practical (what we
call, Applied) Sciences. Indeed, he earned much of his living in
those sciences.
But do note: he was still working on his semeiotic theory at the
time of his death.
So, to suggest that the only Peirce area of inquiry which scholars
ought pursue is that of Pragmaticism, or, rather, what I think you're
suggesting, such Special Sciences (as Biosemiotics), is simply to
narrow the scope to, in my view, an absurd degree. Logicians, in
particular, should see this as absurd. This list moderator will
always argue such a narrowing of possible Peircean inquiry.
I consider your argument in the email I'm responding to (and in many
similar in the last year or so) to be disingenuous in suggesting that
you have not argued against conducting theoretical research in a way
meant to discourage it. But do you really want me to go back over list
posts to show your outright hostility to theorizing? I can do that,
but would rather not. So, in a word, you can certainly have your
research preferences, but please do not try to impose them on other
researchers.
I implore you and every list member to simply get on with her or his
work and let others with different interests get on with theirs. That
is all.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:06 PM Edwina Taborsky < [email protected]
[1]> wrote:
Gary R - you may consider my calls for seeking to increase the depth
and scope of analysis of Peircean semiotic theory by moving its models
into pragmatic examination and analysis of the real world - as an act
of 'intolerance' and a 'downright offense to free inquiry' - but -
obviously, I disagree.
My view is that to restrict Peircean analysis to theory and
terminology is a circular agenda - for the whole point of Peircean
semiosis is its pragmatism - its functional ability to inform us
about the objective real world. If we reject such agendas - then -
how can we know that our interpretations of Peirce, ie, our
theorizing and our models, - are actually pragmatically functional if
we don't move them into that objective world - and test them???
I certainly don't 'block the way of inquiry'. How do I do this?
Surely you aren't suggesting that my calls-for-pragmatism, my calls
to examine how these models and hypotheses actually function to
explain the real world - have any power to stop someone's theorizing,
to 'block the way of inquiry'?! Does anyone actually feel intimidated
by my requests? They might not like them - but - I can say the same
thing about the primary focus of this list - which seems to be on
pure theory. I don't like this focus - since I feel there is no way
to validate a semiosic theory other than by testing it within the
real objective world - but- I'm certainly not 'intimidated' by this
list's focus on pure theory. And I don't feel that this focus 'blocks
the way of inquiry' - I feel that it rejects pragmatics. That's all.
Hardly worth chastising me for being 'intolerant' and 'blocking the
way of inquiry'. Or a 'downright offense to free inquiry'!
Again - Peirce was about more than theory; he was a pragmatist - and
that means examining the real world via his semiosis.
Edwina
On Tue 12/05/20 7:29 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected] [2]
sent:
List,
It would once again appear that Edwina and John expect everyone to
have always and only the same interests as they do. Edwina, for
example, characterizes anything else, notably, theorizing, as "an
irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who "prefer the
isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room'. . .
far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." Well, that's
her opinion. I, for one, do not share it.
As I have argued in the past, those of us who have other interests
and points of view find this intolerance a downright offense to free
inquiry. I consider the apparent conviction that, for example, all
the relevant theories in Peirce's semeiotic are settled and that only
practical applications are worthy of further investigation,
narrow-minded and misguided in the extreme. As I recently remarked,
it takes but a glance at the last several years of journal issues of
Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society to see that semeiotic
theory is not only alive and well, but is growing, evolving. There
is, in the view of many, many Peirce scholars, much more theoretical
work to be done.
As I have said before and even all too recently, as list moderator I
see this continued intolerance for the views of others on this list as
amounting to little more than an attempt at seeking "to block the way
of inquiry." In his comments on the 'General Character of the Forum',
Joseph Ransdell, the founder of this forum, referred to the opposite
of this narrow-mindedness as "generosity of attitude."
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#forum-character
[3]
I will remind Peirce-L members that I serve as moderator of this
list solely at the pleasure of The Peirce Group which has always
given me its full support for my moderation principles and practices.
Is there really anyone in this forum who is prepared to argue again
this principle of a "generosity of attitude" as just set forth? If
so, I would be eager to read that argument.
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#forum-character
-----------------------------
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 .
