BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list - yes, you are right. Such a 'corset' approach of
purity, rejecting new areas of the Peircean framework, would indeed
be a denial of the spirit of Peirce's work. It would transform it
from being a framework for the analysis of the universe and its
infrastructure into a closed text in-itself.
But my question is: who would be the official gatekeepers of the
'pure literalist approach'? Are they self-appointed or appointed in
some other way? And how would these gatekeepers define what is 'The
Truth' vs what is 'Heresy'? What would be their criteria? And of
course - who judges the Gatekeepers?
Edwina
On Sat 13/06/20 4:10 AM , robert marty [email protected]
sent:
Jon, List
Jon I suppose that in this search for coherence in "certain aspects
of Peirce's thought" you do not rule out using mathematical objects
which are appeared in ulterior development of this discipline that
was not at his disposal more than 100 years ago? Otherwise, wouldn't
the pure approach literalist be a true corset for research completely
contrary to the foundations of his thought ?
Best regards,
Robert
Le sam. 13 juin 2020 à 03:15, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit :
Gary F., List:
Thanks for your comments. I am indeed eager to recognize and
explore the evolution of Peirce's thought over the course of his life
as reflected in his manuscripts, which is why I always provide the
year of publication or composition whenever I cite or quote him, and
I encourage others to do likewise.
The complete lack of any further progress on the Chronological
Edition over the last decade-plus (and counting) has been very
frustrating to me. At the same time, it has forced me to examine and
transcribe the available images of various post-1892 manuscripts
myself, which I believe has been quite valuable in a way that simply
reading them as published texts cannot duplicate. As you rightly
said, "It’s as close as we can get to the experience of following
Peirce’s arguments by thinking along with their process."
Accordingly, it will forever baffle me that there are those who
persistently dismiss the value of supporting our interpretations of
his writings by extensively quoting his own words. This is not some
"radical" type of "literalism," but rather a common practice in the
mainstream of philosophical scholarship.
As for "real-world (biological/psychological/experiential)
applications of Peircean semiotic/pragmaticism," it is not that I
have no interest in them, just that I am not as adept at discussing
them. Where I think we may agree is that we are not especially
interested in real-world applications of ideas that others claim to
be Peircean semeiotic/pragmaticism, but that clearly deviate in
significant ways from what he actually wrote, both terminologically
and conceptually. Again, it may very well be the case that
alternative vocabularies are more familiar to most practitioners
today, or that alternative theories match up better with reality; but
their proponents should still acknowledge that those words and ideas
are different from what we find in Peirce's writings. I know that
you and I both try to do so on such occasions.
Finally, I am apparently obliged to say for the umpteenth time that
I have no plan to attempt a coherent synthesis of Peirce's entire
system of thought, or even his later writings. Instead, I will
continue to do what I have always done, and what much of the relevant
secondary literature has routinely done--attempt a coherent synthesis
of certain aspects of his thought, grounded carefully in his entire
corpus. I will always appreciate how the List has served as a
sounding board for presenting, correcting, and refining my thinking
on such matters.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:13 AM wrote:
Jon A.S. (and list),
That is a very interesting discovery, and I look forward to your
complete transcription of R 787. It occurs to me that much of your
recent contribution to the list and to Peircean scholarship has been
to restore the integrity of Peirce’s manuscripts, which (as the
late John Deely observed) were torn apart by the editors of the
Collected Papers and rearranged thematically. Maybe that was their
only choice for getting the Peirce papers published at all, given the
enormity of his Nachlass, but the effect on scholars was to make it
difficult to follow the development of Peirce’s ideas.
The chronological order of Peirce’s thought has been partially
restored by the Peirce Edition Project, but except for the selections
included in EP2, the project has been stalled for ten years at 1892.
I’ve tried to contribute to the restoration by using the manuscript
images put online by Jeff Downard and the SPIN project to produce an
online edition of the Lowell Lectures of 1903:
http://www.gnusystems.ca/Lowells.htm [5] . (The complete Lowell
Lectures have since then been published (
https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/552477 [6] ), but unfortunately
I can’t afford that edition.) Anyway, your work along these lines
has been more thorough, meticulous and diligent than mine, as
exemplified by your contributions to peirce-l in recent years.
You and I have our differences, as we’ve discussed onlist over the
years, but we share the experience of many hours studying and
transcribing the online images of Peirce’s post-1892 manuscripts.
This has given us a sense of the continuity of Peirce’s thought
process — his way of drafting and redrafting his exposition of
semiotic/logic, frequently approaching certain key concepts by
considering them from different angles and in different contexts.
Reading whole manuscripts instead of scattered fragments of Peirce,
and reading them in the context of their chronological order, is an
experience that is not available to those who rely mainly on the CP
edition of his works. It’s as close as we can get to the experience
of following Peirce’s arguments by thinking along with their
process.
One thing I’ve derived from this experience is a deeper sense of
the continuity between the processes of semiosis and those of life
itself (including the experience of living). That connection is the
main subject of my book Turning Signs (
http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/TWindex.htm [7] ), and the central focus
of the book is the recursive and nonlinear nature of those processes.
Peirce did not use those terms, which I’ve drawn from more recent
developments in science, but I’ve tried to show that he anticipated
those developments, implicitly if not explicitly. I’ve occasionally
tried to share this application of Peircean thought on peirce-l —
the post you quote below was one attempt, drawn from my book — but
have pretty much given up on that, as there doesn’t seem to be much
interest here in such real-world
(biological/psychological/experiential) applications of Peircean
semiotic/pragmaticism. I don’t think you are much interested in
that yourself.
Frankly, the only reason I’m still subscribed to the list is that
contributions like yours sometimes cause me to rethink (and sometimes
revise) my use of Peircean concepts in Turning Signs. I’m still
doing that because it has an effect on the way I deal with living in
the Anthropocene, this moment in which life on planet Earth is going
through a relatively sudden and drastic transformation — which is
the main focus of my blog http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [8] . That shift
of interest is my excuse for ignoring most of the discussion here on
peirce-l. “Communicating an idea” sounds like a promising thread,
though, and I look forward to seeing how it develops.
Gary f
--
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [9]
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fran%C3%A7ois_Raymond_Marty
semiotiquedure.online [10] ; semioticadura.online [11] ;
hardsemiotics.online [12]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://www.gnusystems.ca/Lowells.htm
[6] https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/552477
[7] http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/TWindex.htm
[8] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/
[9] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
[10] http://semiotiquedure.online
[11] http://semioticadura.online
[12] http://hardsemiotics.online
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
