John, List I think that Peirce’s focus on the ethics of terminology points to his claim that a term that he uses means, so to speak, ’this but not that’.In other words, his focus was that a term has a specific meaning..and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this!!
My point is different - What I’m saying is that other scholars have focused on the same issues as Peirce, but they have used different terms. When we refer to these issues and this includes within a Peircean discussion, I think we should feel free to use those different terms and thus, show how Peirce and other scholars have similar or even different analyses of these realities…even though they use different terms for the same phenomena. I think it is vital to move the Peircean framework into modern research fields; It is a powerful analytic framework and has a great deal to teach us - and to do so, I feel, requires that we use terminology that these other fields feel comfortable with. … Edwina > On Apr 13, 2024, at 12:53 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > Edwina, Gary, Robert, List, > > I'm sure that we're all familiar with Peirce's note about the ethics of > terminology. But it's not clear whether its influence was good, bad, or > indifferent. The position he recommended was the Linnaean conventions for > naming biological species. But very few things in the world are so rigidly > classifiable. And those that are have been classified by international > conventions: the integers, the chemical elements, and the chemical > compounds. > > And if you look at Peirce's own practice, he replaced 'phenomenology' with > 'phaneroscopy' just a couple of years later. I believe that he was justified > in coining the new term 'phaneroscopy', but there is enough overlap that he > could have continued to use 'phenomenology'. As for the choice of 'mark' vs > 'tone', I believe that 'tone' was a poor choice, and his vacillation in 1908 > indicates that he had some misgivings. That vacillation nullifies any > obligation to continue his practice. > > Another poor choice on Peirce's part was to make 'logic' a synonym for 'logic > as semeiotic'. Until 1902, he used 'logic' as a synonym for the symbolic > logic of Boole and his followers (of which he was one). Instead, he chose > the usage for the title of books, such as Whateley's. I believe that Peirce > made a serious mistake, and Fisch (in his 1986 book) deliberately chose the > term 'semeiotic' as the abbreviation for 'logic as semeiotic'. In my recent > article on phaneroscopy, I adopted Fisch's recommendation. > > And by the way, my citation of Fisch is NOT an appeal to authority. It is > the practice of taking the advice of an expert in a field for choosing > terminology for that field. I recommend that practice. > > John > > > From: "Edwina Taborsky" <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> > > Gary R, List > > 1] Yes - I am aware of Peirce’s insistence on accurate terminology. I am > also aware of the many different terms he used for the same thing. I am also > aware of the many different terms that other scholars use to refer to the > same situations as Peirce describes. My point is that we cannot isolate > scholars and research from each other by insisting that use only the terms > that specific scholar used. We should, rather, understand that these > different scholars were trying to examine the same situations - and should be > open to using these different terms for the SAME situation. > > 2] Yes - I am indeed suggesting that the focus on terminology - and the > insistence that one can use only Peirce’s terminology - because, for some > reason, the meaning of Peirce’s terms cannot be considered as similar to the > meanings yet with different terms used by others - - is a reduction into > nominalism. And by nominalism - I mean a focus rejecting commonality - aka > universals, such that one rejects the fact that, despite the different terms, > there can be a commonality of existence….This can also be known as > conceptualism. > > Of course - different terminology can mean different meanings….but that’s not > my point, is it? > > 3] You yourself referred to me as ‘pseudo-Peircean. As well as ‘dogmatic, > idiosyncratic- and your claim that my work ‘has ‘long been discredited’. > > 4] A ‘purist’ in my view is someone who is unwilling to acknowledge that the > work of some scholar can be similar in its analysis to the work of another > scholar - but - that the terms used are different. ..and above all - it is > perfectly acceptable to , for example, examine the work of Peirce using the > terms used by other scholars. > > 5] I’m not sure what your point is with your outline that JAS is an > ‘accomplished andn distinguished structural engineer’ - and has given > conference papers and published papers on Peirce. The same accolades can be > made about most others on this List - and, apart from it being an example of > the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority’ to which you have made > reference, - such doesn’t make his comments any more valid than those of > other people on the list. > > Edwina > >> On Apr 12, 2024, at 11:21 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Edwina, List, >> >> This is in response to your message to the List today as well as your >> addendum to that message. For now I mainly have just a few questions: >> >> You are no doubt aware of Peirce's insistence on a rigorous ethics of >> terminology. Are you suggesting that he is incorrect in his insistence that >> terminology matters, and can matter significantly -- that is, that it can >> constitute a difference which makes a difference? If you disagree (which you >> appear to), why? >> >> And are you suggesting that scholars and scientists who may occasionally >> focus on terminology -- recently, on the List, John Sowa, Jon Alan Schmidt, >> and myself -- are slipping into nominalism? I myself cannot see how a >> rigorous insistence on the importance of terminology has anything to do with >> nominalism. Please explain how it does. And please also include your >> definition of nominalism. >> >> And do you disagree that using different terminology can correlate with >> having different concepts? >> >> Further, if my memory isn't too diminished, I don't recall anyone on the >> List referring to you as a "pseudo-Peircean," something which would indeed >> constitute unacceptable 'name calling' on Peirce-L. However, today you >> suggested that some on this list are "Purists" which, had that expression >> been directed at particular List participants would indeed constitute a mild >> kind of 'name calling' depending on the context. However, I have no idea >> what you mean by alleging that some here are 'purists' -- please explain >> what you mean by this. >> >> It seems to be that there are many rooms in the houses of Peircean >> semeiotic, of Peircean pragmaticism -- more generally, of semiotic and >> pragmatism -- and that they are not mutually exclusive, that a >> scholar/scientist can be interested both in theory and practice (and >> although Peirce once denied it, he himself accomplished much in both theory >> and practice). >> >> So it would be quite helpful if you would clarify your comments today. >> >> And I will add, although he might prefer that I not, that Jon Alan Schmidt, >> not infrequently accused by some here as being a sort of Peircean >> theoretical 'purist' simply because, as he wrote yesterday, his "own >> priority is accurately understanding, helpfully explaining, and fruitfully >> building on Peirce's views by carefully studying and adhering to his words," >> is an accomplished and distinguished structural engineer, often invited to >> speak at conventions and other gatherings because of his expertise. >> >> And among the 44 papers of his cited on Google Scholar one will find, along >> with the specifically Peircean ones, some papers in which Peircean thought >> is applied in various ways, including engineering reasoning and ethics. >> https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EfQhY7cAAAAJ&hl=en >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:38 AM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com >> <mailto:edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> List >> >> As an addendum - I wonder if this tortured focus on ‘ which term is the >> correct one’ has shades of nominalism in it…ie, that focus on the >> particular, the individual, [ ie the exact term] and an difference to ‘what >> is real’. [ ie the meaning and function]. >> >> Edwina >> >>> On Apr 12, 2024, at 9:32 AM, Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Robert- I agree with you about examining how the ‘relations of embodiment’ >>> of the triadic sign actually function - but this recent debate - and it’s a >>> debate not a discussion’[ i.e., it’s focused on Who Wins ]- rejects a more >>> basic requirement of analysis; namely - what is the operative function of >>> the triad which is using those terms; it is instead focused solely on >>> ‘which term to use’ - and the focus is on ‘purity vs functionality’. . >>> >>> Therefore , as you point out, we get a focus on ‘which word did Peirce >>> prefer’ with the result as you point out that “imaginary distinctions are >>> often drawn between beliefs which differ only in their mode of expression - >>> the wrangling which ensues is real enough, however” 5.398…But, equally >>> according to Peirce - these are ‘false distinctions’…. >>> >>> Is it so impossible to state that one prefers the use of x-term [ which >>> Peirce used] to Y-term [ which Peirce used] because, according to your >>> analysis, it better explains the operative function of what is >>> semiotically taking place - without the heavens opening up with a downpour >>> of rejection??? >>> >>> I recall the equal horror of some members of this list when I use the terms >>> ‘input’ and ‘output’ to refer to the incoming data from the Dynamic object >>> and the resultant output Interpretant meaning of the semiosic >>> mediation….[Peirce never used those words!! You’re a pseudo-Peircean; you >>> are…” . But without such modernization and explanation of the function of >>> semiosis, and the insistence by ’The Purists’ on using only Peircean terms >>> - and above all, his ‘favourite terms’ - , we will never be able to move >>> the real analytic power of Peircean semiosis into the modern world. And >>> that - - is where I believe the focus should be. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 12, 2024, at 6:29 AM, robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:robert.mart...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> List, >>>> I contribute to the debate with this note that I posted on Academia.edu a >>>> few years ago ... at my peril ... I have not yet looked at tone/mark, but >>>> the same methodology should make it possible to conclude that each of the >>>> six types of token involves a tone/mark of a particular kind. >>>> https://www.academia.edu/61335079/Note_on_Signs_Types_and_Tokens >>>> Regards, >>>> Robert Marty >>>> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy >>>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty >>>> <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty> >>>> https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le ven. 12 avr. 2024 à 05:04, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> a écrit : >>>> John, List: >>>> >>>> JFS: As words, there is no logical difference between the words 'mark' and >>>> 'tone' as a term for a possible mark. >>>> >>>> Again, the key difference is between Peirce's definition of "mark" in >>>> Baldwin's dictionary and his definition of "tone"--as well as "tuone," >>>> "tinge," and "potisign"--in various other places. >>>> >>>> JFS: But some words, such as potisign are rather unusual and may even be >>>> considered ugly. They are certainly not memorable. >>>> >>>> Peirce famously preferred an ugly word for his version of pragmatism so >>>> that it would be "safe from kidnappers." If being memorable is a >>>> criterion, then "tone" is superior to "mark" due to its alliteration with >>>> "token" and "type"; as Gary said, someone suggested to him "that the three >>>> all starting with the letter 't' perhaps constituted a kind of mnemonic >>>> device." >>>> >>>> JFS: Jon made the claim that Peirce used the word 'tone' more often, >>>> mainly in obscure MSS. That is not a ringing endorsement. >>>> >>>> It is not a mere claim that I made, it is an indisputable fact--"tone" is >>>> the only word that Peirce used in multiple places and at multiple times >>>> between 1906 and 1908 for the possible counterpart of existent "token" and >>>> necessitant "type." It is also the only one that was published during his >>>> lifetime (CP 4.537, 1906)--the others appear in Logic Notebook entries and >>>> the December 1908 letters to Lady Welby, with "mark" and "potisign" found >>>> solely in the latter, although she subsequently endorsed "tone." As >>>> someone once said, "She had a solid intuitive way of explaining principles >>>> that he tended to explain in ways that were more abstract and difficult to >>>> understand. Her influence enabled him to find simpler and more convincing >>>> explanations for his abstract ideas" >>>> (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-02/msg00096.html). >>>> >>>> JFS: That is not a scientific survey, but I could not find a single >>>> non-Peircean scholar who would even consider the word 'tone'. If anybody >>>> else has any further evidence (or just a personal preference) one way or >>>> the other, please let us know. >>>> >>>> Gary already provided anecdotal evidence to the contrary and expressed his >>>> personal preference for "tone." As always, my own priority is accurately >>>> understanding, helpfully explaining, and fruitfully building on Peirce's >>>> views by carefully studying and adhering to his words. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>>> >>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
