Isn't Peirce's own admission regarding fallibility sufficient to render a "scholarly" approach to him in the conventional sense of "when" and "what does this mean in light of" somewhat ancillary? Trumped by continuity and community and the present task which might be seen in innumerable ways suggested at various time in stand alone phrases by Peirce? Today I am trying to apply Peirce to what is going on on Wall Street which I feel is much bigger than most have yet acknowledged. My feeling is based on what I regard as Peircean premises.
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Jon, and i think the first Peirce quote that JR includes in > his paper pretty well justifies the remark that 90% of his "*philosophical* > output" is directly concerned with semiotic. The only thing that makes it a > bit odd is that it represents a retrospective relabelling on Peirce's part. > If the claim were that 90% of his philosophical work is concerned with logic > (in the broad sense), hardly anybody would balk at that. But it was only > late in his career that Peirce began to use the term "semiotic" (however we > spell it) and identified logic with it. So it's a bit like JR's claim that > his 1867 "New List" is the basic text on his "phenomenology" even though > Peirce didn't use that term for it until 1902; but in the case of "semiotic" > we have a stronger textual mandate for applying the term retroactively. > > Gary F. > > } Her untitled mamafesta memorialising the Mosthighest has gone by many > names at disjointed times. [Finnegans Wake 104] { > > www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jon Awbrey > Sent: October-02-11 7:44 PM > > NH = Nathan Houser > > NH: JR began this paper by pointing out that Peirce conceived of semiotics > as a foundational theory capable of unifying sub-theories dealing with > communication, meaning, and inference. This may call for some > discussion. > He then claims that 90% of Peirce's "prodigious philosophical output" > is > directly concerned with semiotic." This is an odd claim in a way since > it > does not seem to be straightforwardly true. How can we make sense of > it? > > From my sense of Peirce's work, I would have say that I agree with the > claim that Joe makes on this point, even if I can't say whether it would be > for any of the same reasons he had in mind. Understanding Peirce's > pragmatism depends on understanding sign relations, triadic relations, and > relations in general, all of which forms the conceptual framework of his > theory of inquiry and his theory of signs. > > Regards, > > Jon > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
