Jon A.S., list,
I can’t speak for Gary the moderator or anyone else on the list, but I think
the principles you’ve outlined here are pretty much self-evident for any
serious Peirce scholarship, and I would certainly prefer not to be subjected to
further debates about them. If a list member feels that he or she can advance
the understanding of Peirce’s thought by somehow ‘channeling’ him instead of
carefully reading and quoting what he actually wrote (and citing its context),
they are free to say so and to apply the results to whatever special interests
they have; but the rest of us are free to ignore such posts and any threads
that may result from them.
Personally I’d like to extend this a bit further and suggest that experienced
list members are obligated to ignore the kind of “methodological criticisms”
you refer to. I hope, in other words, that list members who feel drawn into
debate on such issues do their debating offlist, as you suggest, and save the
rest of us the trouble of skimming and deleting such debates.
I suggest this because such debates are a complete waste of time, not so much
for those of us who ignore and delete them, but especially for newer members of
the list who may not immediately recognize their futility. They deserve more
substantial content on the Peirce list, and indeed require it if they are going
to learn as much from participation onlist as you and I did in our early years
with it. Your recent exchange with Robert, for instance, did feature some
substantial content, and didn’t get drowned out with irrelevant debates — and
came to a natural end before devolving into fruitless repetition. For the sake
of those relatively new to the list, I’d like to see more of that. And for my
part, I’ll pledge not to make any more meta-posts like this one.
Gary f.
} Entering is the source, and the source means from beginning to end. [Dogen] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the transition
From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: 8-Jun-20 20:51
To: [email protected]
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of
Semeiosis)
John, List:
I will spell out my position one more time, but I continue to find these
strictly methodological criticisms tiresome, and I suspect that many others on
the List would prefer not to be subjected to further debates about them. I
respectfully request that in the future any such exchanges be kept off-List.
JFS: But when trying to understand what Peirce wrote, it's essential to
interpret his words according to his way of thinking.
The only way to ascertain Peirce's way of thinking in the first place is by
interpreting his words.
JFS: The reason why you always agree with Jon is that you both happen to think
in the same way.
Gary R. does not always agree with me, and we do not think in exactly the same
way. What we do have in common are certain methodological principles for
interpreting Peirce or any other author, which are very widely accepted within
the entire community of scholars.
JFS: Robert and I are not claiming that your way is a bad way. We're just
saying that it's not the way Peirce was thinking. Therefore, it's unreliable
as a method for deriving any conclusions from his writings.
Robert can speak for himself, and no one can authoritatively declare what is
and is not "the way Peirce was thinking" except by quoting his own words.
Again, his writings constitute the only definitive evidence available, so we
must appeal to them when making our respective cases.
JFS: I strongly agree with Robert's objections to a "literalist' method of
just quoting words.
Robert raised no particular objections, he simply made an offhand reference to
my alleged "incessant 'literalist' activism." In any case, what alternative
would somehow better support one's interpretations of Peirce's writings than
quoting his own words? After all, someone once
<https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00118.html> asserted
(albeit without textual warrant) that "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all
attempts to paraphrase his thoughts," and then later
<https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00301.html> claimed never
to have "seen any paraphrase of Peirce's words that was clearer or more precise
than his own." If both quotes and paraphrases are disallowed, then what else
is left? No reputable scholar would seriously advocate such an impossibly
restrictive approach.
JFS: Since Jon has an engineering background, he would have had enough
training in science and mathematics that he could learn to appreciate Peirce's
way of thinking.
I have indeed learned to appreciate Peirce's way of thinking, which is why I
have spent so much time contemplating it and then writing about it, both here
and in various publications. In particular, my series of articles on "The
Logic of Ingenuity" (beginning <https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10373> here,
with links to the other three parts) is a direct application of it to the way
of thinking that we engineers routinely employ. Peirce even did some
structural calculations himself in the mid-1890s, for George S. Morison's
proposed (but never constructed) bridge over the Hudson River (see
<https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11048> here and
<https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11401> here).
JFS: Unfortunately, Peirce's late writings present his conclusions without
going into the details of how he derived his results. Those writings are good
for learning Peirce's conclusions, but they don't show how to draw any further
inferences from them.
I strongly disagree. Since most of those late writings are in various
manuscripts and letters, including unsent drafts, they do not merely "present
his conclusions," they embody his way of thinking. The images of his original
pages are especially enlightening, showing his self-corrections, marginal
notes, and various false starts. Like me and many others, Peirce wrote to find
out what he thought, going so far as to state that his inkstand was as
essential to his thinking as any lobe of his brain. Oops, that is a
paraphrase, so here is a quote of the relevant passage for good measure.
CSP: A psychologist cuts out a lobe of my brain (nihil animale me alienum
puto) and then, when I find I cannot express myself, he says, "You see your
faculty of language was localized in that lobe." No doubt it was; and so, if he
had filched my inkstand, I should not have been able to continue my discussion
until I had got another. Yea, the very thoughts would not come to me. So my
faculty of discussion is equally localized in my inkstand. It is localization
in a sense in which a thing may be in two places at once. On the theory that
the distinction between psychical and physical phenomena is the distinction
between final and efficient causation, it is plain enough that the inkstand and
the brain-lobe have the same general relation to the functions of the mind. (CP
7.366, 1902)
Studying Peirce's own words is the best--really, the only--method for learning
his way of thinking. Accordingly, quoting Peirce's own words is the
best--really, the only--method for supporting one's interpretations of his
writings.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
