Dear Gary,
I do resist conflating your views with those of Frances - I do observe,
however, your strong support for her arguments and the position that she
takes.
Responding to your questions regarding Ben's proposal of a formal
"forth." I really cannot respond to Ben's proposal in isolation for two
reasons. First, I do not think that I fully comprehend the category
issues as he states them - but I respect Ben and am prepared to hear him
out on the matter. Second, I am de facto a skeptic on all questions of
natural category in interpretations of Percian semeiotics. Remember
that I have not bought into triadism myself - and see something of a
"hysteria" in the adoption of triadics in both Peirce and those who
later studied him.
I have read Ben's remarks on the matter - but I am not clear on what
purpose it (a forth) serves or how it is *useful.*
With respect,
Steven
Gary Richmond wrote:
Steven,
Frances and I have very different views on most everything concerned
with Peirce. I hope you will resist conflating our views.
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
Mostly I think the deconstruction of Peirce's writings concerning
representamen / sign is a waste of time and simply unable to produce
any meaningful result.
You have a right to your opinion as to what is or is not "a waste of
time." Perhaps I don't think this is a crucial issue myself, but it
was singled out by Joe, and pursued to some extent by Frances and others.
This message by Frances simply makes no sense to me. How do you,
Frances or Gary, propose a representamen that is prior to "all
existent objects and 'signs' and semiosis" - this assertion makes no
sense ontologically or epistemologically.
Well, the message by Frances makes some sense to me. But, again, the
message reflects Frances's position--not mine. However, as I
mentioned, there are questions related to the early cosmos which are
not semeiotic according to Peirce, although they do have at least a
(proto-)categorial structure. I also mentioned the question of bio-
and physio-semiotics, neither of which has held much interest for me,
although I am reading Sebeok's book referenced in my last post in
order "to keep up with the literature.".
Indeed, even if I consider such an argument viable, any such
representamen would not be accessible to apprehension. It leads me
to believe that there is a misunderstanding in Frances argument
concerning the very nature of semeiosis.
Let us see. . . (you are apparently not alone in holding this
viewpoint; while I think that particular errors in her understanding
will eventually be corrected as she seems to be a person capable of
learning in the Peircean sense. I would like to add that we ALL err
from time to time, and this is especially possible in setting forth
abductions. But these grand pronouncements of her ineptitude, etc. are
certainly tending to irk me. What do you think of Ben's hypothesis of
a fourth semeiotic element? Is that a "misunderstanding. . .concerning
the very nature of semeiosis" or would you be willing to argue for it?
I think you are both reading too much into Peirce's exploration -
which he clearly testifies to.
Again, I would appreciate your not conflating our positions. Mainly I
have been arguing Frances's right to present ideas certainly not as
radical as, say, Ben's, who has not met with the kind of criticism
that has been leveled at Frances.
Consider the two terms a property of the immediacy of his manifest
refinement (his analysis).
Certainly you have a point here. On the other hand, there may be a
subtle distinction which is important to analyze.
Gary
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
