John, List: I agree that Edwina's statements as quoted by Gary R. are egregiously anti-Peircean.
Of course, what he characterized as intolerance and an offense to free inquiry was not "seeking to increase the depth and scope of analysis of Peircean semiotic theory," as she absurdly implied, but rather calling purely theoretical inquiry "an irrelevant exercise" and asserting that all who engage in it "prefer the isolation and comfort of the seminar room." While I am certainly not "intimidated" by such blatantly dismissive rhetoric, others might be, and in any case it reveals a *mindset *that is inimical to free inquiry. I honestly do not understand why someone who freely admits to *disliking *"the primary focus of this list" still insists on participating here so frequently, mainly by complaining about others rather than contributing substantively to the discussions. Moreover, absolutely no one is advocating that we "restrict Peircean analysis to theory and terminology," as Edwina also absurdly implied, but rather that we make sure to get the theory and terminology right before attempting to apply them. As Torkild Thellefsen put it in a 2004 article <https://www.academia.edu/18096756/Charles_S._Peirces_Ethics_of_Terminology_revisited>, "Charles S. Peirce's *Ethics of Terminology* Revisited," "in order to conduct good science, we first need good thoughts ... Once having thought good thoughts, these thoughts need to be sharpened through precise definitions" (p. 68). Accordingly, I have long maintained that our persistent disagreements about Peirce's ideas in general and his semeiotic in particular are *conceptual*, not merely terminological. Finally, I find it extremely inappropriate to make sweeping judgments about who is (or is not) capable of understanding Peirce's writings and discussing them intelligently. After all, "Different people have such wonderfully different ways of thinking" (CP 6.462, EP 2:437, 1908). Some are more inclined toward and adept at abstract theory, others prefer to pursue concrete applications, and others (like Peirce himself) can do both. The "generosity of attitude" that Joe Ransdell advocates in the List guidelines would accommodate these differences; they specifically state, "There is no standing agenda except the promotion of philosophical conversation of the sort which one would expect from people with a special interest in Peirce and of other communication in support of that." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:52 AM John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, > > That is the most anti-Peircean statement imaginable: > > GR> 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. > > Theorizing is absolutely esssential for understanding anything. But > Peirce insisted that any theory that has any claim to be scientific must be > exhaustively tested against observations. And that most definitely > includes his categories, which depend on the most careful possible testing > against "experiences in the phaneron". > > You cannot understand anything Peirce wrote unless you repeat the kind of > disciplined testing that he did in developing and revising his theories. > Just quoting Peirce without repeating his very careful methods of analysis > and testing produces nothing but superficial verbiage. > > John >
----------------------------- 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 .
