Clark - thanks for your comments - and they are indeed very valid.
What I'd like to see, in discussions on the Peirce list, is an
expansion of his work from the focus on human cognition - to the
physico-chemical and biological realms. Peirce himself used his
semiosis in those realms but it doesn't get discussed on this list,
which seems to be 95% made up of those focused strictly on philosophy
and philosophers - and human cognition.
So- given the make-up of the posters on this list and their interest
[in philosophy] then, I don't see the point of bringing up the
non-philosophical focus of Peirce's work.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 30/03/17 5:04 PM , CLARK GOBLE cl...@lextek.com sent:
On Mar 30, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I don't see the point of outlining my research on this list - as
I'd get reactions of 'Peirce didn't say that!' and 'That's
Taborsky-semiotics and it's not Pure Peirce!...
I think my point was just that what gets discussed is largely
determined by the list members. If we don’t like what’s being
discussed we can start new discussions.
I’ll confess that many of the discussions the past year I didn’t
find that interesting, although I occasionally chimed in here and
there on say the religion topic. Partially because it was just
something I was fairly ignorant on. So I like learning things I
don’t know. Sometimes they end up being helpful in unexpected ways
with my own pursuits.
I’ve started a few topics myself including the question of the
metaphysical nature of truth in Peirce.
But there’s definitely other topics I’m interested in. One that
someone brought up was what it means to equate two signs. I’d add
what does it mean to repeat a sign, particularly relative to the
index and icon parts of the sign. This is actually a big topic in
Continental philosophy in the 1960’s especially by figures like
Derrida and Deleuze.
If you have other topics I’m game. I wouldn’t mind going back to
the reading we did on natural propositions a year or so ago. There
were parts of that discussion I wasn’t able to join in on due to
time demands that I still have questions about.
I also am studying more typical epistemological questions in a
Peircean framework. It’s an interesting question to me since of
course traditional epistemology is again a more static analysis of
justification at the time of knowledge. There are problems with that.
But if we switch to a more Peircean focus on inquiry, what is the
place of those more traditional epistemological justifications?
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
