When I say I like Peirce I mean 1. I was drawn to him because of similarities between what I took to be his life and mine.
2. I was led by him with some help from Feibleman to a massive clarification in my own thinking - to Peirce as one who integrates idealism, realism and pragmaticism. 3. I do not think categories are as primary as others might. I do think the notion of threes as a way of thinking is not merely a reason for liking Peirce but also a reason for articulating this as a means of countering the binary meltdown of our culture, among other things. *ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Khadimir <khadi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can confirm that last bit about the difficulty of explaining these > concepts, though I do so as a Deweyan always wondering exactly how did he > borrow and deviate from Peirce's concepts. I do hear a number of people > say that they "like Peirce," but it is never clear to what they are > referring. That might be due to my ignorance of the received view of > Peirce. Perhaps someone could enlighten me? > > Jason > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Catherine Legg <cl...@waikato.ac.nz>wrote: > >> Gary R wrote: >> * >> >>For my own part, I tend--as perhaps Jon does as well--to see >> esthetic/ethics/logic as semeiotic as being in genuine tricategorial >> relation so that they *inform* each other in interesting ways. Trichotomic >> vector theory, then, does not demand that one necessarily always follow >> the order: 1ns (esthetic), then 2ns (ethics), then 3ns (logic). One may >> also look at the three involutionally (logic involves ethics which, in >> turn, involves esthetic) or, even, according to the vector of >> representation (logic shows esthetic to be in that particular relation to >> ethics which Peirce holds them to be in). But only a very few scholars >> have taken up tricategorial vector relations. Indeed, R. J. Parmentier and >> I are the only folk I know of who have published work on possible paths of >> movement (vectors) through a genuine trichotomic relation which does *not* >> follow the Hegelian order: 1ns then 2ns then 3ns. >> >> This is very interesting, thanks Gary :-) >> >> >>Indeed, with a few exceptions, there appears at present to be >> relatively little interest in Peirce's categories generally speaking. >> Given the way they pervade his scientific and philosophical work, and >> considering how highly he valued their discovery, this has always struck >> me as quite odd. >> * >> >> I have found that presenting on these concepts to non-Peirceans in >> seminars and conference papers can be very hard work. It doesn't make much >> sense to people who aren't already thinking within Peirce's system. >> >> Cathy >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L >> listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to >> lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body >> of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to >> PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
