Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1))
List, Edwina's email provides an opportunity to point out the role that metaphors play in mediating our relation with linguistic signs: The text as - a digital photograph of the universe as it exists (21st version of Descartes) - a mirror allowing us to see the content of the mind of the author - a lens of pair of glasses (or infrared goggles) helping us better "focus" on what is in front of us - a weapon to hurt someone - a filter to purify something (and discard other things) As Stephen Pepper (1942) tells us, when working with metaphors, we always must work with two-three metaphors among which we switch while making sense of what is communicated via a text. if we use just one metaphor, we eventually become a prisoner of that metaphor. So, I read Edwina's post as telling us that she believes that we need to discuss and explore that mirror metaphor and the role that it plays in Peircean scholarship. Or more generally, what are the dominant textual metaphors with which people on this list are working? Do people engage with texts as if they are perfectly mirroring the content of Peirce's mind? Do they think of text as digital photographs of the universe and everything in it? Which other metaphors are in use on this list? Note that an engagement with the topic of metaphors opens up a new realm to work through disagreement. Disagreement is now set up as the result of a lack of attention to the metaphors with which one and one's interlocutors are tacitly working. My very best, Margaretha H. On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:17 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > List - I don't think that all these quotations can really deal with > problems on the list. > > After all - the quotation below could be read as supporting a perspective > of someone who 'blows with the wind', I.e, an a priori mode of 'Fixation of > Belief'just as much as it can show a situation where a scientist > acknowledges that 'the facts aren't there' and the hypothesis must be > dropped. > > I still think that many of the problems on this list can be viewed as > based on a sense by some that their reading of Peirce is the 'correct' one > - and they belittle other readings, openly defining them as 'your personal > view and not what Peirce meant'. It's this two-step action that silences > discussion. Why bother posting when one is met with such an arrogant and > dismissive attitude? > > Edwina > > > > On Thu 07/10/21 8:26 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent: > > “Perfect readiness to assimilate new associations implies perfect > readiness to drop old ones.… To be a philosopher, or a scientific man, you > must be as a little child, with all the sincerity and simple-mindedness of > the child's vision, with all the plasticity of the child's mental habits.” > — C.S. Peirce, RLT 192 (1898) > > > > > > From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Gary Richmond > Sent: 7-Oct-21 05:18 > To: Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case > ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1)) > > > > John, List, > > > > "Men seem to themselves to be guided by reason. There is little doubt that > this is largely illusory . . . because their reasonings are prominent in > their consciousness, and are attended to, while their instincts [and > emotions] they are hardly aware of. . . . — Charles S. Peirce > > > > "To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most > difficult.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > > > > “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is > that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” — > Richard Feynman > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > “Let everything happen to you > Beauty and terror > Just keep going > No feeling is final” > ― Rainer Maria Rilke > > > > Gary Richmond > > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > > Communication Studies > > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 AM sowa @bestweb.net > wrote: > > Gary R, > > > > I agree that those suggestions are helpful: > > > > GR: [Margaretha's] ideas and suggestive metaphors about how List > discussion might be improved -- along with the suggestions by John Sowa and > Gary Furhman which Jon Alan Schmidt just quoted -- if taken up in the > spirit of collegiality, could help improve communication here considerably. > > > > I would like to add a few more suggestions. > > > > The first one is that the method of asking questions, as in Plato's > dialogues with Socrates as the discussion leader, is one of the best ways > to promote fruitful discussions.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1))
List - I don't think that all these quotations can really deal with problems on the list. After all - the quotation below could be read as supporting a perspective of someone who 'blows with the wind', I.e, an a priori mode of 'Fixation of Belief'just as much as it can show a situation where a scientist acknowledges that 'the facts aren't there' and the hypothesis must be dropped. I still think that many of the problems on this list can be viewed as based on a sense by some that their reading of Peirce is the 'correct' one - and they belittle other readings, openly defining them as 'your personal view and not what Peirce meant'. It's this two-step action that silences discussion. Why bother posting when one is met with such an arrogant and dismissive attitude? Edwina On Thu 07/10/21 8:26 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent: “Perfect readiness to assimilate new associations implies perfect readiness to drop old ones.… To be a philosopher, or a scientific man, you must be as a little child, with all the sincerity and simple-mindedness of the child's vision, with all the plasticity of the child's mental habits.” — C.S. Peirce, RLT 192 (1898) From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Gary Richmond Sent: 7-Oct-21 05:18 To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1)) John, List, "Men seem to themselves to be guided by reason. There is little doubt that this is largely illusory . . . because their reasonings are prominent in their consciousness, and are attended to, while their instincts [and emotions] they are hardly aware of. . . . — Charles S. Peirce "To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” — Richard Feynman Best, Gary R “LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU BEAUTY AND TERROR JUST KEEP GOING NO FEELING IS FINAL” ― RAINER MARIA RILKE Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 AM sowa @bestweb.net [1] wrote: Gary R, I agree that those suggestions are helpful: GR: [Margaretha's] ideas and suggestive metaphors about how List discussion might be improved -- along with the suggestions by John Sowa and Gary Furhman which Jon Alan Schmidt just quoted -- if taken up in the spirit of collegiality, could help improve communication here considerably. I would like to add a few more suggestions. The first one is that the method of asking questions, as in Plato's dialogues with Socrates as the discussion leader, is one of the best ways to promote fruitful discussions. People may be offended by a direct contradiction of what they just said, but nobody is offended by an honest question. (A loaded question can be offensive. e.g. "Have you stopped beating your wife?") The so-called "Socratic method" can also be annoying when pushed to an extreme. But an honest question is more likely to generate a fruitful discussion. For Peirce, it's especially important to recognize that he had a very fertile imagination, and his ideas were constantly growing .and developing over the years. His comment "symbols grow" indicates that the same words on different occasions may have very different meanings and implications: 1903: For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but the meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old ones. (CP 2.222). The only statements by Peirce that remain constant are the ones in mathematics and formal logic A statement in math or logic has a fixed meaning forever. But Peirce's comments about then may change, as we have noted in various discussions. The following point is significant: CSP: The little that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been entirely the fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much more than the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show. (CP 5.469, R318, 1907) The categories of 1-ness, 2-ness, and 3-ness are based on logic, and they have been central to his thought throughout. But his applications of those ideas continued to grow. Even in his late writings of 1913, his ideas continued to grow, and he had hopes of writing more. Nobody on planet earth can be certain that any ideas outside of mathematics and logic would remain unchanged. The recent discussions o
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1))
“Perfect readiness to assimilate new associations implies perfect readiness to drop old ones.… To be a philosopher, or a scientific man, you must be as a little child, with all the sincerity and simple-mindedness of the child's vision, with all the plasticity of the child's mental habits.” — C.S. Peirce, RLT 192 (1898) From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Gary Richmond Sent: 7-Oct-21 05:18 To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1)) John, List, "Men seem to themselves to be guided by reason. There is little doubt that this is largely illusory . . . because their reasonings are prominent in their consciousness, and are attended to, while their instincts [and emotions] they are hardly aware of. . . . — Charles S. Peirce "To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” — Richard Feynman Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 AM sowa @bestweb.net <http://bestweb.net> mailto:s...@bestweb.net> > wrote: Gary R, I agree that those suggestions are helpful: GR: [Margaretha's] ideas and suggestive metaphors about how List discussion might be improved -- along with the suggestions by John Sowa and Gary Furhman which Jon Alan Schmidt just quoted -- if taken up in the spirit of collegiality, could help improve communication here considerably. I would like to add a few more suggestions. The first one is that the method of asking questions, as in Plato's dialogues with Socrates as the discussion leader, is one of the best ways to promote fruitful discussions. People may be offended by a direct contradiction of what they just said, but nobody is offended by an honest question. (A loaded question can be offensive. e.g. "Have you stopped beating your wife?") The so-called "Socratic method" can also be annoying when pushed to an extreme. But an honest question is more likely to generate a fruitful discussion. For Peirce, it's especially important to recognize that he had a very fertile imagination, and his ideas were constantly growing .and developing over the years. His comment "symbols grow" indicates that the same words on different occasions may have very different meanings and implications: 1903: For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but the meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old ones. (CP 2.222). The only statements by Peirce that remain constant are the ones in mathematics and formal logic A statement in math or logic has a fixed meaning forever. But Peirce's comments about then may change, as we have noted in various discussions. The following point is significant: CSP: The little that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been entirely the fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much more than the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show. (CP 5.469, R318, 1907) The categories of 1-ness, 2-ness, and 3-ness are based on logic, and they have been central to his thought throughout. But his applications of those ideas continued to grow. Even in his late writings of 1913, his ideas continued to grow, and he had hopes of writing more. Nobody on planet earth can be certain that any ideas outside of mathematics and logic would remain unchanged. The recent discussions of comments by De Tienne and Atkins about phaneroscopy were interesting, but nobody can be certain that their opinions about the "science egg" are what Peirce intended. On these issues, good questions are more valuable than definitive answers. In summary, a good way to improve the level of discourse on Peirce-L is to ask more questions and to avoid making definitive pronouncements about what Peirce meant. De Tienne read as much or more than anybody else, and even he doesn't know. We can state our own opinions, but we can't claim that our opinions are what Peirce intended. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 L
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1))
John, List, "Men seem to themselves to be guided by reason. There is little doubt that this is largely illusory . . . because their reasonings are prominent in their consciousness, and are attended to, while their instincts [and emotions] they are hardly aware of. . . . — Charles S. Peirce "To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” — Richard Feynman Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 AM sowa @bestweb.net wrote: > Gary R, > > I agree that those suggestions are helpful: > > GR: [Margaretha's] ideas and suggestive metaphors about how List > discussion might be improved -- along with the suggestions by John Sowa and > Gary Furhman which Jon Alan Schmidt just quoted -- if taken up in the > spirit of collegiality, could help improve communication here considerably. > > I would like to add a few more suggestions. > > The first one is that the method of asking questions, as in Plato's > dialogues with Socrates as the discussion leader, is one of the best ways > to promote fruitful discussions. People may be offended by a direct > contradiction of what they just said, but nobody is offended by an honest > question. (A loaded question can be offensive. e.g. "Have you stopped > beating your wife?") > > The so-called "Socratic method" can also be annoying when pushed to an > extreme. But an honest question is more likely to generate a fruitful > discussion. > > For Peirce, it's especially important to recognize that he had a very > fertile imagination, and his ideas were constantly growing .and developing > over the years. His comment "symbols grow" indicates that the same words > on different occasions may have very different meanings and implications: > > 1903: For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that > is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but > the meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off > old ones. (CP 2.222). > > The only statements by Peirce that remain constant are the ones in > mathematics and formal logic A statement in math or logic has a fixed > meaning forever. But Peirce's comments about then may change, as we have > noted in various discussions. > > The following point is significant: > > CSP: The little that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that > matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been entirely the > fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much more than > the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show. > (CP 5.469, R318, 1907) > > The categories of 1-ness, 2-ness, and 3-ness are based on logic, and they > have been central to his thought throughout. But his applications of those > ideas continued to grow. Even in his late writings of 1913, his ideas > continued to grow, and he had hopes of writing more. Nobody on planet > earth can be certain that any ideas outside of mathematics and logic would > remain unchanged. > > The recent discussions of comments by De Tienne and Atkins about > phaneroscopy were interesting, but nobody can be certain that their > opinions about the "science egg" are what Peirce intended. On these > issues, good questions are more valuable than definitive answers. > > In summary, a good way to improve the level of discourse on Peirce-L is to > ask more questions and to avoid making definitive pronouncements about what > Peirce meant. De Tienne read as much or more than anybody else, and even > he doesn't know. We can state our own opinions, but we can't claim that > our opinions are what Peirce intended. > > John > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case ofPeirce's Semiotics (part B1))
Gary R, I agree that those suggestions are helpful: GR: [Margaretha's] ideas and suggestive metaphors about how List discussion might be improved -- along with the suggestions by John Sowa and Gary Furhman which Jon Alan Schmidt just quoted -- if taken up in the spirit of collegiality, could help improve communication here considerably. I would like to add a few more suggestions. The first one is that the method of asking questions, as in Plato's dialogues with Socrates as the discussion leader, is one of the best ways to promote fruitful discussions. People may be offended by a direct contradiction of what they just said, but nobody is offended by an honest question. (A loaded question can be offensive. e.g. "Have you stopped beating your wife?") The so-called "Socratic method" can also be annoying when pushed to an extreme. But an honest question is more likely to generate a fruitful discussion. For Peirce, it's especially important to recognize that he had a very fertile imagination, and his ideas were constantly growing .and developing over the years. His comment "symbols grow" indicates that the same words on different occasions may have very different meanings and implications: 1903: For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but the meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old ones. (CP 2.222). The only statements by Peirce that remain constant are the ones in mathematics and formal logic A statement in math or logic has a fixed meaning forever. But Peirce's comments about then may change, as we have noted in various discussions. The following point is significant: CSP: The little that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been entirely the fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much more than the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show. (CP 5.469, R318, 1907) The categories of 1-ness, 2-ness, and 3-ness are based on logic, and they have been central to his thought throughout. But his applications of those ideas continued to grow. Even in his late writings of 1913, his ideas continued to grow, and he had hopes of writing more. Nobody on planet earth can be certain that any ideas outside of mathematics and logic would remain unchanged. The recent discussions of comments by De Tienne and Atkins about phaneroscopy were interesting, but nobody can be certain that their opinions about the "science egg" are what Peirce intended. On these issues, good questions are more valuable than definitive answers. In summary, a good way to improve the level of discourse on Peirce-L is to ask more questions and to avoid making definitive pronouncements about what Peirce meant. De Tienne read as much or more than anybody else, and even he doesn't know. We can state our own opinions, but we can't claim that our opinions are what Peirce intended. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
