I am taking the liberty of forwarding Frank's note to peirce-l which was, I assume, inadvertently sent only to the biosemiotics list. I agree with his principal point that it might be a good idea to return to the discussion of Chapter 10 of NP. Certainly other topics can be given new Subject lines. Best, Gary
[image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Franklin Ransom < pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Steven, Edwina, list, > > I'm not entirely sure what the discussion between Steven and Edwina has to > do with the content of the chapter that is the topic of the thread. Hoping > this gets back to that somehow, I would like to say a couple of things. > > First, it is not only the ideas about mathematics drawing necessary > conclusions and other sciences borrowing principles from mathematics that > are at work here--it is important that the subject matter of mathematics > has to do with hypotheses concerning forms of relations. Without that idea, > the other ideas could not deliver the results that Frederik discusses for > the significance of diagrams for mathematics and epistemology. > > Second, of course Charles Peirce did not originate every idea of which he > made use. Just about the thing I love most about him and his work is the > way he works to carry forward the work of others, in the genuine spirit of > community of inquiry. And I don't see why, because Benjamin Peirce > developed certain ideas, that this somehow lessens what is at stake in Ch. > 10 of NP. Are we supposed to judge of the merit of an idea based upon the > character of the person who first introduced it? I admit that in certain > limited situations, this may be true, but I don't see that in this context, > a context which is guided by an interest in scientific inquiry. > > Which brings me to my third point: Even if we give due credit to Benjamin > Peirce, how does that affect the argument that is up for discussion in the > chapter? Is this really just about saying that Frederik should have said > that Charles got a couple of those ideas from his father? Frederik already > made a point of mentioning that mathematics as the science of drawing > necessary conclusions comes from Benjamin. > > So, why are we talking about this here? > > -- Franklin > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> You are missing the point of 'la longue duree' - with your changing it >> to a long-term Result. You are reducing complex causality to a singular >> linear 'what comes after some individual comes up with a new idea'..and are >> describing individuals who advocate, copy, echo. That's not what 'la >> longue duree' is about nor is it what I am talking about...that 'community >> of scholars' that develops knowledge. >> >> Your insistence that Benjamin Peirce originated an idea and that Charles >> Peirce merely copied it - and your question of - so what is new' about what >> Peirce said - fits in with your answer, that one individual comes up with >> the idea and others simply copy it. That's not what I'm talking about. >> >> I'm talking about the development of knowledge. You claim that it's all >> based on 'individuals' - which I call The Great Man theory. I reject that >> and claim that knowledge and its development is based within a >> community-of-knowledge, with individuals in that community working within a >> societal complex (population, economic mode, societal beliefs, technology, >> power-politics etc)..and these individuals as a network develop new >> knowledge. One individual may articulate that new knowledge but it never >> appears unattached to the deeper community-of-knowledge and the societal >> complex. >> >> I suggest we stop this interaction, as we each have our point of view, >> and each of us remains unconvinced by the arguments of the other. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> >> *To:* Biosemiotics <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> >> *Cc:* The Peirce Family List <peircefamil...@googlegroups.com> >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2015 3:18 PM >> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8346] Re: Natural Propositions, Ch. 10: >> Corollarial and Theorematic Experiments with Diagrams >> >> >> On Apr 19, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >> 'la longue duree' >> >> >> >> In terms of this idea "La Longue Duree." Each individual may contribute >> to the momentum of new ideas by apprehending the idea and advocating it. >> There is certainly causal power in advocacy and echoing. But this does not >> diminish the particular role of the individual in those ideas and their >> development. >> >> Think about the development of ideas around communism. Trotsky, Lenin and >> Stalin, et al. >> >> To argue that these ideas were not the result of the causal effects of >> individuals suggests a disembodied power to ideas that is simply absent. >> >> Regards, >> Steven >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Los Gatos, California. +1-650-308-8611 >> http://iase.info >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
