Peirce is intelligible in the way anyone else is -- randomly and imperfectly. See Shakespeare scholarship over time. My favorite example of the miasm that applies to comprehension is the typical greeting one gets after a sermon. On examination what the person is lauding is her own hearing which has nothing to do with what the speaker thinks he or she was saying. Dylan says at one point that it's a wonder we can even feed ourselves. Everything is infallible, imperfect, changing, evolving.And oh, I got that from Charles Sanders Peirce. Or was it Heraclitus?
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary F, list > > I disagree with you. I don't think that you have a right to assert that > 'all I ask of an interpreter of Peirce' is..... You and I are equal - and > this sentence of yours denies that equality and instead inserts you as The > Authority on How To Read and Understand Peirce. Instead - this is simply > how YOU choose to read Peirce. Others do not choose this method. And you > cannot claim that your method produces 'the correct Peirce'. It is simply > YOUR method. > > Your outline of how I read Peirce is quite incorrect. As I said - I read > Peirce in a holistic manner, which means - not 'free' as you belittle the > term - but that I read ALL of Peirce, and don't read him as do you and a > few [not all] others do - in a literary manner, i.e., as if he were writing > literature and you approach it as a literary critique of all the years of > his work, in a year by year, essay by essay, text-based and linear manner. > > Furthermore - you seem to be suggesting that the massive amount of work > [all those volumes are not bits and pieces] already available to us - > somehow doesn't tell the 'truth', the 'full story' about what Peirce meant. > I doubt that a few more essays/pages/articles can really change the basic > framework and thought of Peirce that is already to be found in what we have > available. Peirce was a very thorough and consistent thinker - and his > analysis is found already in what we have available... > > I choose a different approach to Peirce - and you have no right to assert > that your method is superior - No-one is asking you to change your method > of reading Peirce - and I'm not belittling you! I focus only on the issue > and never on the person. > > Given this, all that I ask of you - is that you respect other researchers > in Peirce...rather than belittling them. You can - and should - certainly > disagree with their conclusions - but I consider that you should focus your > critique on the topic and points raised in those conclusions - rather than > belittling their person, their intellect, their way of working...and > suggesting that their way does not lead to 'enlightenment' while your way > does. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Wed 13/12/17 7:59 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent: > > Edwina, > > > > All I ask of an interpreter of Peirce is that he or she read the whole > text, exactly as Peirce wrote it at the time and in the context he was > working in, and see for themselves what it means — realizing that its > implications for the reader might differ from the implications of a > previous (or subsequent) reading of the same text. > > > > The alternative method (which you’ve called “holistic” and I’ve called > “free”) is to pick out a few phrases here and there, rearrange them to suit > one’s preconceived ideas, fill the gaps with some phrases of your own > invention, and defend that “reading” against all others. Interpreters have > a right to read that way, of course; the trouble is that if you read a text > that way, it can never mean anything new to you, and thus can’t extend or > deepen your understanding of Peirce’s work as a whole. > > > > I don’t object to people reading that way, or even posting such readings > to the list in opposition to others, but I can’t read or post that way > myself because I’m still learning from Peirce. That’s why I keep coming > back to Peirce texts that I’ve read before, hoping to see what they mean > that I didn’t see before, in the light of other texts I’ve read in the > meantime, such as the one Jeff quoted in his post last night. I’m in no > rush to arrive at a Final Interpretation of Peirce, I just want to keep > learning. > > > > I am certainly learning from reading these Lowell lectures — especially so > because I never had a chance to read entire drafts of them until the SPIN > project made the manuscripts available online. Reading a whole text as > Peirce wrote it is what I would prefer to call a holistic reading. Before > this, I had to settle for the bits and pieces selected by editors of the > Collected > Papers and scattered around in its several volumes. The transcriptions of > the Lowells that I’ve put on my own website are my attempt to remedy that > situation, or at least improve on it, for those who don’t have the time or > inclination to read the manuscripts themselves. > > > > Gary f. > > http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell3.htm }{ Peirce’s Lowell Lectures of 1903 > > > > > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > Sent: 12-Dec-17 21:26 > > Gary F, list > > I guess we'll just continue to disagree. > > I don't consider that I've given a 'very free translation' of 1.346-7 > which sounds rather denigrating of my view. I wasn't translating at all, > but reading and understanding it. You read and understand it differently. > I'm certainly not going to say that YOU provide a 'very free translation'. > Instead - you offer a different interpretation. OK? > > Peirce himself says that 'genuine triadic relations can never be built of > dyadic relations'..and refers to a 'spot with one tail, a spot with two > tails'....[i.e., he does use the term 'spot'] and writes: 'You may think > that a node connecting three lines of identity Y is not a triadic idea. > But analysis will show that it is so". 1.346. > > And that 'Y' which is in that sentence - is definitely that three > -spoked image. Further in that same section, as you also write, he refers > to the syllogistic triad .."There is a recognition of triadic identity but > it is only brought about as a conclusion from two premises, which is itself > a triadic relation". [Major premise, minor premise, conclusion]. BUT - I > consider that a syllogism is ONE Sign, a semiosic triad. It is an Argument > - and is made up of three Relations in a mode of Thirdness. You would > disagree. > > So- I consider that Peirce was quite clear about the spoked image of the > semiosic triad. > > Therefore - all that can be said is that you and I have a clear > disagreement on this issue. We can each present our views - and that's > that. > > Edwina > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
