Hi Gary F.,
First, thank you, and Gene & Gary R. for your kind posts welcoming my
re-appearance. Greatly appreciated!
Then, to your post. Well, it involves a couple of inter-related questions, not
just one. - On the question resulting from you Google search, sorry to say,
I'm simply not able to answer. So, let's leave it aside. But your main
question, concerning JR's first sentence, i'm delighted to deal with. Although
in a manner you may not expect. Still, I trust my response may put your mind at
ease with the question bothering you.
What I'll deal with is the relation of your question to the task at hand:
Understanding JR's paper. - And further, understanding it using a slow read
method.
Mind you, this is all about method. Answers are like buckets of water, while
method is the well.
> GF: You may be able to suggest an answer to a question that's been bothering
> me since i read the first sentence of JR's paper: " The thesis of my paper is
> that it is doubtful that any distinction should be drawn between empirical
> and nonempirical semiotics or even between experimental and nonexperimental
> semiotics." Since i had never heard (until now) of anyone wanting to make
> such a distinction, i couldn't help wondering why JR thought it important
What you are doing here, is that you get stuck with the word 'semiotics' used
in connection with 'empirical' & 'nonempirical' and 'experimental' &
'nonexperimental' . You then make a Google search of this particular unit of
words. - The result gives rise to new questions, which - to my mind- leads you
even further astray from the task at hand.
Peirce, in his mathematical writings on number theory, takes a clear stand on
the question which are primary, cardinals or ordinals. For him, ordinals are.
There is quite much involved in this, relevant for all kinds of methodical
issues, including methods of interpreting and understanding texts. For
instance, the type of questions to be meaningfully ( and fruitfully) posed
changes with the stand taken. - With cardinals taken as primary, the stand
lures into questions like "How much?", "How many?", " One or two, or more?"
etc. In short, it leads into taking UNITS (whatever they may be) as matters of
primary concern.
This is what I think you do, when you take this particular unit of words the
ground for your questions.
On the other hand, if and when ordinals are taken as primary, the ground for
questions changes. What comes to the fore, are questions like: "What next?",
"What follows?". That is: the question of steps (and the nature of steps)
comes to the fore. - Ordinals are all about sequences!
This is in line with Peirce's view that logic (in the narrow sense) basically
amounts to "If - then" -relation.
So, when you got puzzled by JR's first sentence, the first step you took (most
probably without noticing) was to take this particular unit of words as your
primary concern. - It then acted as a ground for further questions & attepts to
find an answer.
There is another way. I'll try to describe it. - Or rather, using Peirce's
almost totally neglected concept, give a precept for finding the way.
Here, a marginal note: To my mind the concept of precept is more important than
the concept of concept in Peircean theory. Although it is not frequent in his
writings. The neglect is evidenced by it not appearing in the index in EP. -
Continuing, then.
If you take a new look at JR's first sentence, dissolving the unit your mind
got obsessed with, you will find that taking up a distinction between empirical
and nonempirical, or between experimental and nonexperimental does not surprise
you at all. - Although it is not commonplace to use words 'nonempirical' or
'nonexperimental'. Your choice in Googling shows an understanding of this. You
did not Google *nonempirical semiotics'. I assume your intuitive expectation of
finding anything (even if and when you were not aware of making a choice here)
was close to zero.
So, it must have been the use of 'semiotics' in this particular union of words,
used by JR. which was the root of your puzzle. - How to solve it, then?
There are two fruitful options, to my mind, for the next step. The first is to
look back & to look a bit ahead within the context of the paper.
Steven omitted the title of the paper in introducing this slow read. - Not
good! - The title is always a key, even The Key, for understanding what the
paper is about. But I won't go into this now. Perhaps later. (Suffice it to say
that I have often spent about 90 % of the time used in writing a paper with the
title and the first sentence. This mentioned to illustrate the importance I
take these to have.)
Taking a close look at the title and reading the next sentence, or rather the
whole paragraph, I find the most fruitful step in attempting to solve any
puzzle met at the beginning of any paper (or book, or whatever).
Which brings us to the question
