John, Gary F., Edwina, List: JFS: Nobody on planet earth is qualified to say that he or she knows exactly what Peirce meant.
Nobody is claiming to know *exactly *what Peirce meant, but we can certainly discern *approximately *what Peirce meant, often to a very high level of confidence, by carefully studying his voluminous writings. Otherwise, indeed, "why would anyone bother to read Peirce at all?" ET: The question remains: Is there are 'Final Interpretant' of a text - or, are readings-of-texts [or indeed, of speech] to be understood as both Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants and thus, not 'the Final' or ultimate truth-of-the-text/speech? The immediate interpretant is how the text *possibly could be *understood in accordance with the definitions of the words that comprise it, along with their arrangement in accordance with the syntax and other rules of grammar for the system of signs in which it is expressed. The dynamical interpretant is how the text *actually is* understood by an individual reader on a particular occasion. The final interpretant is how the text *necessarily would be* understood under ideal circumstances. Accordingly, every text has an immediate interpretant and a final interpretant--the former is the range of *valid* (plausible) interpretations, while the latter is the one *true *interpretation; not an accomplished outcome, but that to which all sincere inquirers properly seek to conform their dynamical interpretants as *retroductive hypotheses* (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-07/msg00042.html ). ET: We cannot, ourselves, proclaim that our readings are 'the Final' one. Only the 'community-of-scholars', over time, can do that, if at all. I agree, in the same sense that we cannot proclaim that *any *of our beliefs--including scientific theories, and even the mathematical proposition that twice two is four--are infallibly correct. However, we *can *discern which dynamical interpretants are *valid *because they are consistent with the immediate interpretant, and which are *invalid *because they do not. This is precisely what the members of the community of scholars do--we inductively evaluate each interpretative hypothesis by testing it against not only the text of interest, but also other relevant texts, especially those written by the same author. We also review the definitions of key terms, especially in dictionaries published at roughly the same time as the text of interest. Occasionally we are fortunate enough to be studying a text written by someone who also prepared the definitions of key terms for a dictionary published at roughly the same time. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:18 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F, list > > In your equal haste to reply, you are ignoring that of course my reply is > my opinion. What else could it be? > > And of course I meant-my-opinion, just as you meant yours! Would you or I > state our opinions if we didn't mean them??? > > The question remains: Is there are 'Final Interpretant' of a text - or, > are readings-of-texts [or indeed, of speech] to be understood as both > Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants and thus, not 'the Final' or ultimate > truth-of-the-text/speech? > > I'd say that our readings of Peirce have to be understood as Immediate and > Dynamic. We cannot, ourselves, proclaim that our readings are 'the Final' > one. Only the 'community-of-scholars', over time, can do that, if at all. > > This isn't just an act-of-charity, but a FACT about the basic nature of > language. It's not mechanical and depends, completely, on interpretation. > And - interpretation is not dyadic but triadic and therefore, functions > only within the semiosic triad of mediated interpretation. > > Any further problems with that???? > > Edwina > > On Mon 27/09/21 9:46 AM , [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, in your haste to respond, you forgot to mention that your > interpretation of my post is your opinion, as all interpretations are. > But we will assume that you meant that, and evaluate your reply > accordingly. > > > > } Act in such a way that your heart may be free from hatred. Let not your > heart be offended with anyone. [Abdu'l-Baha] { > > https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time > > > > From: [email protected] On Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky > Sent: 27-Sep-21 09:25 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Vagueness and ambiguity > > Gary F, list > > You are ignoring the FACTS of linguistic interpretation and the FACTS > of the semiosic triadic process. > > The facts are, that language is not a mechanical communication system > where Item X is simply moved from Site A to Site B, but necessarily rests > on a dialogic interaction of interpretation. This is hardly a novel > analysis; linguistic research has shown this to be a fact for many, many > years. > > And since this dialogic interaction is triadic, it inserts a > mediating action, the Representamen/Sign..which transforms that raw data > into a meaning. AND - this resultant Interpretant meaning is different > according to the actions of the Representamen/Sign. AND - the > Representamen/Sign can be and is necessarily different for different > Agents. An expert physicist understands the atom in a very different way > than the individual without such knowledge. > > Therefore - your claim that I declare that Peirce meant the opposite of > what he wrote - rejects the semiosic triadic process and instead, proclaims > the validity of the mechanical process. It actually removes the > Representamen/Sign!!! Rejects semiosis!! > > Edwina > > On Mon 27/09/21 8:54 AM , [email protected] sent: > > John, you’ve said repeatedly that only a direct quotation from Peirce can > represent what he thought or meant. Now you tell us that not even a direct > quotation can do that: “Nobody on planet earth is qualified to say that he > or she knows exactly what Peirce meant.” For all we know, Peirce could have > meant exactly the opposite of what he wrote in some direct quotation, as > Edwina has been arguing. So we are all free to attribute any thought to > Peirce, as long as we say that the attribution is an opinion; for all > opinions are equally baseless. > > > > I think this logic, or hermeneutic, has the potential to revolutionize > Peircean studies. But of course that’s only my opinion, as all > interpretations are. Still, I can’t help wondering: why would anyone bother > to read Peirce at all? > > > > Gary f. > > } By their fruits ye shall know them. [Matthew 7:20] { > > https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time > > > > From: [email protected] On Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net > Sent: 27-Sep-21 00:33 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Vagueness and ambiguity (was Argumentation for the > Reality of God > > > > Edwina, Gary R, List, > > I've spent many years working with linguists, lexicographers, and computer > scientists in developing tools for analyzing languages.and relating them to > and from logic and computer notations. Following are the slides for a talk > about the problems: http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf > > The first 20 slides present examples from a variety of sources. You can > skip the rest. But I want to emphasize slide 17 on microsenses. That's > a term coined by the linguist Allen Cruse, who observed that there is an > open-ended, potentially infinite, range of variations for nearly every word > in every language. > ------------------------------ > > ET: Thank you for the link to the last chapter of your book, where you > outline the basic ambiguity of language.This is a well-known fact and > simply supports my view that, for example, a reading of Peirce can only > be an interpretation and is not a direct mechanical transfer of meaning > from Site A to Site B. It's an interpretation and subject to further > discussion. > > Yes. Please read the examples in those slides. It's never safe to > assume that the same word in two different contexts has the same meaning. > The technical terms of science are more likely to have fairly fixed > meanings, but note the examples for the word number. > > ET: This means that I reject JAS's statement that my interpretation of > Peirce's Mind/Body relationship is merely an 'assertion' whereas his > interpretation is an accurate demonstration because he provides 'exact > quotations' > > Yes. Peirce's thought was dynamically developing over the years. It's > never safe to assume that words in two different MSS have exactly the same > miicrosense. Nobody on planet earth is qualified to say that he or she > knows exactly what Peirce meant. His statements about mathematics and > logic are fairly reliable. But it's not possible to assume that any two > people have the same interpretation of the following words: mind, thought, > feeling, God, imagination and many others ,... > > 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
