List, JAS I think JAS and I, at least, are discussing two different issues.
No-one is arguing against the use of specific terminology, accepted by all, in particular, in the scientific disciplines. And this includes the term created by an individual for a specific specimen or action or..medical treatment or… Or - if we are studying one particular person, be it Kant or Aristotle or Peirce - then, obviously, our focus is on and only on, that particular individual’s works and terms. What some of us are discussing is totally different from taxonomy We aren’t talking about any one’s particular terminology but about thought and about Reality, the Real world. - and refers to the processes of semiosic dynamics, ie.., information or cognitive dynamics - in the physicochemical, biological and social realms. And in this area, as Peirce points out - “to make single individuals absolute judges of truth is most pernicious” 5.265. 1868. And therefore what we are talking about is Reality - and “Thus, the very origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception essentially involves the notion of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits and capable of a definite increase in knowledge” [5.311; emphasis in original] And this exploration of reality involves a community of scholars, using reason, doubt, discussion,ie, “There are Real Things, whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affects our senses according to regular laws, and though our sensations are as different as are our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are” 5.384. And we achieve this by a ‘community of inquirers 5.265 That is, Peirce was cautious about the individual [Cartesian] ‘intuition’ and reliance on personal ‘clear and distinct ideas' and instead, focused on that ‘community of inquirers over time’ - Furthermore his focus is on the connection that our idea has with the real world; ie, ’the effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have’. 5.402. This isn’t about terminology; this is about the exploration of Reality - and requires a community. Therefore - to examine what other scholars are saying about their explorations of Reality - and with their terms The fact is - other scholars are also exploring Reality; they are using different terms - but- their focus and agenda is similar, and in many cases their infrastructure they develop is similar to that of Peirce. Edwina > On Apr 13, 2024, at 6:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > John, Edwina, List: > > Like Gary, I would prefer not to engage in another back-and-forth on this > well-worn ground, so I will just offer a few comments and hopefully leave it > at that. > > JFS: The position he recommended was the Linnaean conventions for naming > biological species. > > Peirce did not so much recommend those conventions themselves as the > underlying motivation that prompted biologists to embrace them. > > CSP: The problem of the biological taxonomists has, however, been > incomparably more difficult; and they have solved it (barring small > exceptions) with brilliant success. How did they accomplish this? Not by > appealing to the power of congresses, but by appealing to the power of the > idea of right and wrong. ... [W]hoever deliberately uses a word or other > symbol in any other sense than that which was conferred upon it by its sole > rightful creator commits a shameful offense against the inventor of the > symbol and against science, and it becomes the duty of the others to treat > the act with contempt and indignation. (CP 2.224, EP 2:265, 1903) > > That is why the portion of "A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic" where this > passage appears bears the title, "The Ethics of Terminology"--it advocates > voluntary cooperation by the practitioners of any particular branch of > science to use scrupulously consistent terminology. In fact, Peirce > acknowledges up-front that it would violate his own principles "to make the > smallest pretension to dictate the conduct of others in this matter" (CP > 2.219, EP 2:263; emphasis mine). Our disagreement over "tone" vs. "mark" is a > good example--we have each attempted to persuade the other (and those reading > along) to adopt one of these and abandon the other, but since Peirce himself > considered both without definitively choosing one, neither of us can rightly > impose his preference on the other (or anyone else). > > JFS: 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'. > > Indeed, this change in terminology for a subtle distinction in meaning was > perfectly consistent with the principles that Peirce spelled out--"for > philosophical conceptions which vary by a hair's breadth from those for which > suitable terms exist, to invent terms with a due regard for the usages of > philosophical terminology and those of the English language, but yet with a > distinctly technical appearance" (CP 2.226, EP 2:266; emphasis mine). He > coined "the phaneron" for whatever is or could be present to any mind in any > way because this is a slightly different conception from "the phenomenon" as > introduced by Hegel and later adopted by Husserl, and he renamed the > corresponding science "phaneroscopy" because it is more about direct > observation than systematic study. > > JFS: It is the practice of taking the advice of an expert in a field for > choosing terminology for that field. I recommend that practice. > > In the field of Peirce scholarship, the expert whose advice on choosing > terminology should be given the most weight is obviously Peirce himself. > Otherwise, how can we legitimately claim to be expounding his ideas and > applying his framework? Unfortunately, when the terminology of modern > research fields is used instead, it is not always clear that those different > terms really have the same meanings as Peirce's terms. Consequently, it can > be inaccurate or at least misleading to describe the resulting framework as > Peircean--the terminological differences reflect underlying conceptual > differences. Frankly, that is one of my concerns about "mark"--perhaps it > seems congenial to audiences today because they already have a sense of what > it means, but in fact they do not have in mind "Objects which are Signs so > far as they are merely possible, but felt to be positively possible" (CP > 8.363, EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 12:07 PM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com > <mailto:edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> 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 >>> <mailto: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 > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <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 > <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto: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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
