Edwina, John, List ET: First - I don't believe that anyone - whether in the 'pure philosophy' field or the applied fields can ever say: 'OK, I now sufficiently and thoroughly understand Peirce's contributions' . Someone, either oneself or some one else - will have more to say.
I agree with you that no one can say that they "thoroughly" (in the sense at least of 'completely') understand Peirce's contributions (although I think researchers can *well* understand certain discrete facets of his several theories). But I disagree that some researchers cannot "sufficiently" understand at least aspects of his thought so that, for example, they are able to apply his thought to real world problems and projects. Indeed, John Sowa has been doing this for decades with his development of Conceptual Graphs from (in good part) Peirce's Existential Graphs. His CGs are being used in R&D groups, and adopted for computer science, cognitive science, and AI. Once could offer multiple examples by workers in both the hard and soft sciences, in the humanities, the arts, etc.. ET: Nor, can one genuinely say that ONLY people engaged in 'pure philosophy' research are equipped to ever 'sufficiently and thoroughly understand Peirce'. I'd say that people engaged in the 'non-philosophical fields' - whether theoretical or applied sciences, linguistics, AI, biology etc are capable of sufficient understanding of Peirce to use his theories and infrastructure to more clearly explain their fields. Well, you're seemingly contradicting yourself here.* Either* people involved in philosophical research or "engaged in the 'non-philosophical fields" can have a sufficient understanding of Peirce for their purposes *or* they cannot. In your first paragraph above you say they cannot have a "sufficient" understanding (I'll pass over for now what one might consider to be a "thorough" understanding as being likely controversial). But in this paragraph you write that those working in theoretical or applied sciences "*are* capable of sufficient understanding of Peirce to use his theories and infrastructure to more clearly explain their fields.." Which is it? ET: My understanding of what John wrote was that he was saying that some people interested in Peirce are focused purely on the texts - and not on applied analysis. And surely one can't have a problem with that! BUT - are you saying that the world should not engage in the applied analysis of Peirce unless and until the 'pure textual research' is done and finished? [if it ever is, which I doubt]. First, besides there being those who are principally interested in the text *or *their applications, there are those, like John, who are seemingly interested in both the texts and what you referred to as "applied analysis." Perhaps the emphasis for John has been, especially in recent years, more in the direction of the application of Peirce's theories; but he has unquestionably shown a keen interest in at least some of the texts -- clearly apparent in certain exchanges in this very forums as well as papers he's written and talks he's given -- especially those texts concerning logic, and most especially to those on EGs. See, for one example, his running commentary of Peirce's MS 514 on the Arisbe site. http://www.jfsowa.com/peirce/ms514.htm ET (continuing): BUT - are you saying that the world should not engage in the applied analysis of Peirce unless and until the 'pure textual research' is done and finished? [if it ever is, which I doubt]. It would be foolish for anyone to say anything of the sort: either that the 'pure textual research' would ever be completed, nor that those applying Peirce's thought would have to wait for anything like that impossible 'completion' to occur. Throughout the history of philosophy and science, researchers have taken that which had been accomplished by original and creative thinkers, and at the levels and in the ways in which they understood it, and applied it. One tests a theory as soon as there's sufficient understanding of it to devise a test. ET: Are you saying that a biologist or linguistic or economics researcher, who is not focused on textual, philosophical analysis, cannot understand Peirce enough to use his theories in their field? And has to wait until the 'theoretical researcher' has done their work? I don't see things this way! Indeed - I'd even bet that the applied researcher might have a clear understanding of Peirce - just from their own field - because Peirce's work is pragmatic and operative in the real world. Again, I am not saying anything at all to suggest "that a biologist or linguistic or economics researcher, who is not focused on textual, philosophical analysis, cannot understand Peirce enough to use his theories in their field." But I do think that our understanding of Peirce's work has grown since the first part of the 20th century, and that it is in fact possible to *better* understand such an original and difficult thinker over time. As for the possibility that an "applied researcher" in a given field might have even a clearer understanding of some Peircean concept and its possible application in her field than others involved in pure theoretical research, I wouldn't doubt that for a moment, and John's work with CGs (but not only with CGs) is proof positive of that. What I *did* say, rather, was that pure and applied work can *mutually fructify* each other. In my view, the likelihood of Peirce's pioneering work being much further advanced in the real world would come both from a better, clearer, deeper understanding of his theories, while the accomplishments of those thinkers applying those theories in the real world clarify the pure theory itself -- at least if they respect each other and are in communication with each other (admittedly, the latter especially is hard to do). There may be a division of labor implied here, but not a division of purpose. In my view, it's not a matter of "one *or* the other" but something more like "all together one after another" (F. Matthias Alexander). Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 6:39 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, List > > I won't speak for John but only myself. I'm a bit confused by your post. > > First - I don't believe that anyone - whether in the 'pure philosophy' > field or the applied fields can ever say: 'OK, I now sufficiently and > thoroughly understand Peirce's contributions' . Someone, either oneself or > some one else - will have more to say. > > Nor, can one genuinely say that ONLY people engaged in 'pure philosophy' > research are equipped to ever 'sufficiently and thoroughly understand > Peirce'. I'd say that people engaged in the 'non-philosophical fields' - > whether theoretical or applied sciences, linguistics, AI, biology etc are > capable of sufficient understanding of Peirce to use his theories and > infrastructure to more clearly explain their fields. > > My understanding of what John wrote was that he was saying that some > people interested in Peirce are focused purely on the texts - and not on > applied analysis. And surely one can't have a problem with that! BUT - are > you saying that the world should not engage in the applied analysis of > Peirce unless and until the 'pure textual research' is done and finished? > [if it ever is, which I doubt]. > > Are you saying that a biologist or linguistic or economics researcher, who > is not focused on textual, philosophical analysis, cannot understand Peirce > enough to use his theories in their field? And has to wait until the > 'theoretical researcher' has done their work? I don't see things this way! > Indeed - I'd even bet that the applied researcher might have a clear > understanding of Peirce - just from their own field - because Peirce's work > is pragmatic and operative in the real world. > > ??? > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Sun 10/10/21 5:47 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: > > John, List, > > John, do you really believe that most everyone -- or even many a one -- > now working in linguistics, cognitive science, and AI sufficiently, let > alone, thoroughly understands Peirce's contributions to philosophy, > semeiotic and a number of relevant sciences and so they are now fully ready > to employ it to springboard into a new "foundation for science"? Would > that were the case. > > Your paper, "Peirce's contributions to the 21st century" (which I read > during that decade when I was attending your International Conference on > Conceptual Structure and was reading all your papers then available as > well as the 1st edition of your book on KR), your "Peirce's contributions" > paper, even in its abstract, suggests that you are, of course, well aware > that Peirce has been severely neglected; and, I would add, not only > neglected but misused by certain thinkers, and not only those whom you > mentioned in the analytic tradition. > > Abstract. Peirce was [. . .] a largely neglected philosopher in the 20th > century. Peirce's research in logic, physics, mathematics, and lexicography > made him uniquely qualified to appreciate the rigors of science, the > nuances of language, and the semiotic processes that support both. Instead > of using logic to understand language, the philosophers who began the > analytic tradition — Frege, Russell, and Carnap — tried to replace language > with a purified version of logic. As a result, they created an unbridgeable > gap between themselves and the so-called Continental philosophers, they > exacerbated the behaviorist tendency to reject any study of meaning, and > they left semantics as an unexplored wilderness with only a few elegantly > drawn, but incomplete maps. . . This article reviews the ongoing efforts to > construct a new foundation for 21st-century philosophy on the basis of > Peirce's research and its potential for revolutionizing the study of > meaning in cognitive science, especially in the fields of linguistics and > artificial intelligence. > > > It seems to me that the continuing, and in many cases, excellent work of > those who want Peirce to be understood on his own terms, that that work > ought to be respected as a kind of propaedeutic to the 'revolutionary' "new > foundation" for science which you propose. By this I mean that in my view > one needs a clear, contextualized and, optimally, both broad understanding > as well as a specific (to the disciplines one is working in) understanding > of what Peirce thought, as difficult as it may be to attain those > understandings. > > Peirce was not only thoroughly neglected, but some of those early 20th > century scholars knew well enough the potential value of his work and > opted to ignore it for various reasons including out of a sense of its very > power and potential, in many cases far exceeding their own. Their studies > led to a kind of logical dead-end which we have yet to recover from. In > addition, many of these scholars were clearly much more concerned with > creating 'schools' of 20th century analytic thought and forming the > faculties of university departments and the like than they were with the > advance of science. That is, and in particular, they were considerably more > interested in career building and fame than in logic. And so there was a > lot of me-tooism (as opposed to hetero-criticism, to use Peirce's term) > in those schools and university departments. Of course you know all this as > you've written about it. > > Then there were several 'thieves of Peirce', like Charles Morris and > Walker Percy, who both misunderstood and misused Peirce, taking what they > could use for their own purposes, leaving behind what they could use (or, > perhaps, grasp) and typically misrepresenting Peirce, including by using > some of his terminology and modifying it to mean concepts far different > than he had intended, this to the confusion of generations of students of > philosophy of science, linguistics, logic, semiotic, etc. > > Take for example Morris' dyadic and psychologically based, indeed, > social behaviorally based (stimulus-response) theory which employs Peirce- > like terminology, notably, 'syntactics', 'semantics', and 'pragmatics'. > This is the kind of distortion which happens when Peirce's work in a given > area of science or philosophy is not fully comprehended or, in the case of > Morris, perhaps purposely misinterpreted. It has been my experience that > too many (all whom I know, some of whom are friends) KR workers employ > Morris' distorted terms (and the meanings he affords them) and are > generally ignorant of how Peirce employs the original terminology in his > semeiotic. > > And I am of the mind that Morris' is just one -- albeit a major example-- > of misrepresentation and misuse of facets of Peirce's work, Richard Rorty's > postmodern neo-pragmatism being another (in)famous example. See Susan' > Haack's damning criticism of his distortions in "Vulgar Rortyism." > https://newcriterion.com/issues/1997/11/vulgar-rortyism > > You write, John, that you now have "no intention of telling anyone what > they should not do." But the implication of what you've written on the > List is and remains that those who are trying to thoroughly understand what > Peirce thought -- and as they see it precisely for the edification of > scholars and scientists of the present and future -- are, well, rather > wasting time since, apparently, we already know enough of what we need to > know of his thought. Is this why you think that only a few scholars, > philosophers, and scientists at conferences like APA are interested in > researching and learning about Peirce's work in depth? > > Yet you also seem to "acknowledge that those with a textual focus are > vital to the whole research field," "but a far more important issue is > what his ideas mean for us today." Well, which is it? If a "textual > focus' is vital, then it would seem to be an equally important issue. > > Of course I personally think these two ought to be put on an equal footing > and, in fact, mutually fructify each other. The scholars whom I know in > person or by reputation (and I know quite a few) who are working "with a > textual focus" would all like to see Peirce's work play a greater role in > the semeiotic, linguistic, and cognitive science of our day and into the > future. They merely tend to strongly agree with you when you write that > their focus is "vital to the whole research field." > > Best, > > Gary R > > “Let everything happen to you > Beauty and terror > Just keep going > No feeling is final” > ― Rainer Maria Rilke > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 1:30 PM sowa @bestweb.net <s...@bestweb.net> > wrote: > >> I accidentally hit SEND on my previous reply. >> >> I won't criticize anybody's attempts to determine exactly what Peirce >> intended a century ago/ But a far more important issue is what his ideas >> mean for us today. A few years ago, I wrote a widely cited n article with >> the title "Peirce's contributions to the 21st century: >> http://jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st. If I were writing that today, I'd add >> quite a bit more. >> >> On the topic of continuity and dimensionality, an enormous amount of new >> work has been published in the century after Peirce. For a survey, see the >> article on infinite dimensional category theory in the October 2021 issue >> of Scientific American. This is related to the work that Robert Marty and >> others have been discussing. >> >> Different people have different preferences. Textual criticism of what >> Peirce wrote (as the PEP project was doing) is important. Surveys of what >> Peirce wrote are also important. But at APA,conferences that kind of work >> is buried in sessions that are only attended by Peirce scholars. >> Meanwhile, lectures on other 19th century philosophers and logicians >> (Frege, for example) get far more attention in general sessions. >> >> I have no intention of telling anyone what they should not do. But >> Peirce himself wwas writing for the future, especially in the last several >> years of his life. I believe that Peirce's legacy depends critically on >> his relevance for ongoing research today. The Peirce Centennial Congress >> in 2014 was far more exciting. It drew international participants from a >> wide range of fields who showed how Peirce's ideas had influenced their >> research today. >> >> I have no intention of stopping anybody from talking about the past, but >> Peirce's emphasis was always on the future. I believe that Peirce would >> strongly encourage us to relate his ideas to the latest research today. >> >> 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 >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >> l...@list.iupui.edu 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. >> > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
