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 Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:06 PM Edwina Taborsky <
[email protected]> 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]
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
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 Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
