[peirce-l] Re: Design and Semiotics Revisited (...new thread from "Peircean elements" topic)

[Gary Richmond]

Joe, Frances, and List, Joseph Ransdell wrote: I can only say that I find Frances's usage of words so idiosyncratic in sentence after sentence that I cannot figure out any way to restate her view in sentences that make any sense to me. Perhaps because at one point several years ago I studied rather intensely for a few weeks some of Frances's work and consequently go rather familiar with her admittedly idiosyncratic terminology, I am having none of this difficulty whatsoever. Indeed, I find her thinking quite clear and, as earlier mentioned, persuasive--that is, for one who is not totally turned off and revulsed by her strange locutions. I will, however, await Ben's response to Frances to comment much further regarding the substantive issues. I thought perhaps there might be some one misunderstanding that would account for this in a systematic way, and guessed that it might be due to taking the distinction between "sign" and "representamen" as a distinction to be drawn within semiotic analysis, so that e.g. one can speak of signs as if they are a special case of representamens,  whereas in fact it is a distinction between a vernacular term and a technical term which Peirce used as a  replacement for theoretical purposes and it makes no sense to talk that way:  if you are going to talk in semiotical terms using "sign" that is okay; if you are going to talk instead using "representamen" that is okay; but it is not okay -- because it makes no sense -- to try to talk in semiotical terms using both.  So maybe that mistake accounts for the impenetrable prose in this particular message.  Or maybe it doesn't.   Well, I would tend to disagree with you as to the sign/representamen distinction being merely that "between a vernacular term and a technical term" as my recent response to Theresa Calvet may have suggested.   Perhaps a better explanation, though, might be that Frances has followed a practice of accumulating vocabulary from a variety of theoretical sources and made the mistake of thinking that one can treat every different technical term from whatever theoretical source as adding a new conceptual element to an overall eclectic theory of her own that simply combines all others indiscriminately, as is suggested by her speaking at one point about something being "all in the Morrisean pragmatic manner".  I have noticed before that a lot of her vocabulary is actually terminology that has been used in this or that other theory rather than being the neologism it seems at first to be.  If so this is surely a mistake, certain to induce incoherence and, worse than that, discourage critical thinking by causing an insensitivity to just such incoherence since it is of her own intentional making (though with unintended consequences of which she is not sufficiently aware).   Moreover, it is perhaps what encourages her to keep coming up with ever new neologisms, without any tendency to explain what they mean, as if it ought to be obvious what she means.  But in fact it is not at all obvious what, say, "tychastics" means even if one knows what "tychastic" means.  The  move from an adverb or an adjective to a noun is not a trivial move nor is it a move which necessarily results in a sentence that makes any sense.  I suggest that she should resolve to start to work at stripping her terminology down to an absolute minimum of technical terms from any source, even avoiding all but a minimum of Peirce's technical terms when writing about Peirce.  Just write in plain vernacular everyday English as far as possible and do philosophy in that way for a while.  Better to have a few clear ideas than a vast quantity of confused ones, for philosophical purposes, I should think.  I would agree with you, Joe, that Frances ought continue to consider the terminology she uses, although is not meant to suggest that I  necessarily approve of all your recommendations to her. However, that's a matter for her to reflect upon, and I believe I have now said all that I care to say on the matter. More when Ben posts a response to Frances (which, again, seems quite likely, while I understand that he shares some of your consternation, Joe, with Frances's locution). Gary   Anyway, Frances, I'm not intending to be discouraging but wanting to register strongly a belief that you are defeating your purposes by this indulging this penchant for verbal embellishments to no good purpose.  The points you are wanting to make are not going to be successfully made this way.     That's it, for what it's worth.  Gary, if you think I am wrong about this please say so straight out.  You are right to defend her against merely negative criticism that is of no help, but isn't there something that needs to be dealt with here by way of systematic correction?   Joe Ransdell - --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com