BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
1] You write - 'thanks for acknowledging this '- as if I ever
rejected such a view!
2] Yes - I know that you reject my view of the Sign as a triad -
made up of the O-R-I. As to who is more accurate - that's an
opinion. ..since I don't see that your insistence on terminology
clarifies with HOW this triad, as a semiosic process, actually works.
I disagree, for example, with your insertion of the FI before the
others - but- that's another issue.
3] I don't agree that your textual references to 'sign' and
'representamen' provides any insight into HOW this triadic process
actually functions. That is - I continue to see your concern as
terminological rather than analytic.
4] You just wrote a post where you said that I said:
theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people
who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the
seminar room'
Even though - this is NOT what I wrote!
5] It's hardly a generous attitude to suggest to me that I continue
with my focus on the 'practical application of theory'. While others
get on with their quite different work ]pure theorizing]. That's
hardly the function of a discussion list - where we each 'get on with
our own isolate agenda, so to speak' rather than dialogue with each
other. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask someone who is working on
theory: How does this theory function to explain the actual world???
6] Pragmatism can hardly be confined to only one section/branch of
Peirce's work.
7] And I don't see why it is offensive to ask that a theory show how
it can be functional in the real world.
Edwina
On Thu 14/05/20 4:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both
valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are
more valid and accurate and truthful than others.
Thanks for acknowledging this. As an example, in my view it is an
invalid and inaccurate interpretation of Peirce to use "Sign" for
"the triad" and "representamen" for its "median node," rather than
treating these terms as synonyms for the first correlate of the
genuine triadic relation of representing or mediating. The only
alternative consistent with his writings is to use "sign" for "a
Representamen of which some Interpretant is a cognition of a mind"
(CP 2.242, EP 2:291, 1903)--i.e., "a Representamen with a mental
interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903)--but he ultimately decided
that "there was no need of this horrid long word" because "sign" is
"a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very broad word in
almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905).
ET: Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of
Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts?
Not by itself, but it is certainly an important type of evidence for
supporting or refuting the plausibility of a particular
interpretation. As I recently stated [1], "'Constant references to
the text' are a valid inductive method for testing hypotheses about
the text itself, as well as hypotheses about the views of the author
as expressed in the text." For the example above, I provide three
quotes that demonstrate how using "Sign" for "the triad" and
"representamen" for its "median node" is inconsistent with Peirce's
careful definitions of both "sign" and "representamen." Again [2],
I do not consider this to be merely a terminological disagreement, I
believe that it has important conceptual ramifications.
ET: In my case, for example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' -
when I have never said that ... I am defined as 'hostile to theory'!
Where has anyone done this? Specific examples, please.
On the contrary, with his characteristic generosity of attitude,
Gary R. stated , "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." On the other hand, those of us who tend to
focus more on theory have very recently had such efforts summarily
dismissed as "an irrelevant exercise" and our motives impugned as
"prefer[ring] the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar
room'." As Gary R. concluded, "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."
ET: Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where
his pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg,
speculative grammar!
Where has anyone said this? Specific examples, please.
On the contrary, Gary R. simply observed that pragmatism per se--as
"merely a method of ascertaining the meanings of hard words and of
abstract concepts" (CP 5.464, EP 2:400, 1907)--falls under the third
branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic, which is
speculative rhetoric or methodeutic. Consequently, in itself
pragmatism is primarily a matter of theory, but Peirce himself
immediately adds, "As to the ulterior and indirect effects of
practicing the pragmatistic method, that is quite another affair"
(ibid). The same is true of speculative grammar and all the other
branches of philosophy.
ET: What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a
critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as
isolate from the real world - is not met with a switch of my frankly
valid comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To
Theory.
This goes both ways. What I would appreciate is a less hostile
atmosphere, where a focus on theory, such as mine, is not met with
the defensive tactic of "Get Out of the Seminar Room" or "Stop
Paraphrasing Peirce."
ET: So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but-
yes, charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation.
Indeed, as long as that goes for all of us.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 8:53 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this
list, there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere.
That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true
interpretations of Peirce - and invalid/incorrect/untrue ones. But is
this necessarily the problem??
I don't think that a resolution to this view would be one that
promotes the relativism of 'diversity' - where 'all views are
acceptable. I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is
both valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some
are more valid and accurate and truthful than others. So - Wimbledon
does exist!
I think the problems on the list aren't a drive to 'the truth' or
even diversity of views - for - really, there is a strong rejection
of diversity not simply in interpretations but above all in
focus...It would be nice for more diversity - not in views but in
focus - ie, moving Peirce into examining the real world in areas such
as AI, physics, biology - but that's not what I see as the problem.
I think a key problem is 'method' of argumentation. If we take as
'given' that the agenda/focus is to show an accurate analysis of
Peirce - then, how does one's Argument develop this?
Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of
Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? That -
after all, is one method [aka, the Squid Method]. It certainly
exhausts the reader into silence but - is it in itself proof? It
certainly seems reasonable; after all - quotations-are-quotations, so
to speak. But- is this an actual argument and does this method include
understanding?
Another method is what I might call The SideStep - where someone's
post is rebutted with 'Peirce never used that word'- and thus, the
whole argument is dismissed as invalid...when the word [used in its
natural sense] is merely a synonym for the Peircean argument. Other
methods include of course, Selectivity, where the other person's
argument is dismissed by selecting one small part of it as
'problematic' and thus, the whole argument is thrown out. And so
on... These are hardly methods unique to this list but are found
wherever mankind gets together to argue and debate. We aren't pure
and exempt.
Interestingly enough, on a list devoted to semiosis, ie, information
and cognition - the misunderstandings are huge. In my case, for
example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I have never said
that. My view is that theories are vital [as 3ns] but are empty
unless expressed within the actualities of the real world of 2ns.
That is - theories must be examined as to whether they actually,
truthfully, represent and inform us about the real world. Theories
can't survive on logic alone. But - despite my repeated assertions
of this view - I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! That's a neat
defensive tactic, using Tenacity, to not deal with my concern!
Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his
pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative
grammar!
I certainly don't want a 'charitable interpretation' of my position
- leading to the misinterpretation on this list that I am
anti-theorist. Nor do I want relativism where 'anything goes' and we
assume we are all really OK guys.
What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a
critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as
isolate from the real world - is not met with a switch of my frankly
valid comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To
Theory. That doesn't solve the issue. It just kicks the can out the
door, so to speak. But it's still there..albeit rusty and distant.
So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes,
charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00016.html
[2] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00127.html
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5]
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 .
