Gary, list,
Yes, I also thought the aspect of Peirce’s semiotics that might be helpful was precisely his methodeutic or rhetoric - corresponding, I believe, to what today, following Charles Morris, is generally referred to as pragmatics. And that was indeed the drift of Eugene Halton’s suggestions, in particular. However much it might help my sister – somewhat, I think – I think it has been a valuable discussion, with a number of interesting viewpoints represented. I certainly have not found the discussion disappointing, and I want to thank all who have contributed. Best, Peter ________________________________ From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:49:25 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes List, Well, whether or not much of this discussion has been very helpful to Peter's sister, there has certainly been considerable interest in continuing it. While beyond the topic at hand, I think a meta-analysis of the discussion might prove valuable on other levels than the semiotic one of the nativity scene (of which more a little later). But even at the semiotic level it is perhaps helpful to recall that for Peirce semeiotics is a much broader study than theoretical grammar and critical logic (the later being what we normally think of as logic, "logic as logic" in Peirce's phrase). It is completed by a third branch: Methodeutic or philosophical rhetoric . . . studies the principles that relate signs to each other and to the world: "Its task is to ascertain the laws by which in every scientific intelligence one sign gives birth to another, and especially one thought brings forth another" (CP 2.229). An important facet of Peirce's rhetoric is, of course, his pragmatism involving, among other things, a theory of learning. Perhaps had Peter stated his question in terms of what Peirce's pragmatism might have to offer to an analysis of the nativity scene, his sister might have gotten more useful material for her investigation (I thought Gene's analysis attempted to do this in part, but not everyone agreed). Meanwhile, it would appear that she did not get nothing. But returning to the possible meta-analysis of the content, I would like to throw out a few possibly provocative comments. It seems to me that Peirce's semiotic, when taken in its fullest sense as including all three of its branches including rhetoric, has in fact contributed a great deal to the understanding of many issues and problems of our modern world and even a brief survey of the literature of just this new century will show that to be the case. Is that really in doubt? As to the question of what this list "owes" Peter's sister or, for that matter, anyone, I would answer simply, "nothing whatsoever." If it can or does offer something of value to participants and others, well that is all to the good. Certainly in the present discussion there has been at least the good faith attempt to respond to Peter's question. But there is no requirement that list members do anything more than discuss Peirce and Peirce-related concepts as best they can given all manner of constraints (of time, interest, direction of their own intellectual pursuits, etc.) As to the notion that there's some problem with this forum perhaps being too "philosophical," one needs to keep in mind that the three branches of logic as semeiotic are included in Peirce's cenoscopic philosophy. And while he probably contributed the lion's share of his intellectual efforts to logical pursuits, that not only is pragmatism an important facet of semeiotic and cenosocpic philosophy, but that cenoscopy also famously includes phenomenology, theoretical esthetics and ethics, and metaphysics, and that Peirce contributed to all of these philosophical sciences, more to some than to others. (I won't comment here on his extensive and original work in parts of mathematics and certain special sciences as well as the classification of the sciences included in review science, but his philosophical work constitutes, I think it's safe to say, the largest part of it). So, one gives and gets from this small forum (under 400 members) what he/she can. And the occasional complaint that the forum be other than it is seems to me to be empty. Still, from my couple of decades on it, I have seen more positive assessment of what goes on here than negative, and while I have been frustrated at times, I have learned a great deal here over the years (and many have said the same thing on and off-list). I consider this to be a kind of intellectual home (Arisbe?) where I can hang whatever philosophical 'hat; I care to as long as I'm respectful of others views (and when I've lapsed in this for some reason--for example, I'm dealing now with the double whammy of having just had a major flood of my entire apartment at the same time as I'm suffering from a bad case of bronchitis--I have made a point of apologizing.) So, I apologize in advance if I seem to be complaining about certain recent perceived 'complaints' about the list (or, at least, the present discussion). Truthfully, what I most want to say, perhaps as a possible motto for the new year, is something Tom Peters, business guru, once wrote: "Celebrate what you want to see more of." Best, Gary R [Gary Richmond] Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718 482-5690 On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu<mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: John S., List. Thank you for sending the link to "Signs, Processes, and Language Games: Foundations for Ontology." After a first look, I've found it quite helpful and inspiring on a number of fronts. I, too, agree with your suggestions about the five kinds of studies that are important for understanding Peirce's writings and their implications. Having said that, I'd add two more to the list: 1. Analyze the development of his thought by relating his many publications and his many more unpublished manuscripts. 2. Relate his writings to his sources in various fields from the ancient Greeks to the latest developments of his day. 3. Analyze the effects of his work on his contemporaries and successors. 4. Analyze developments in the 20th and 21st centuries that could have been improved if the developers had studied Peirce. 5. Compare Peirce's methods for analyzing the world and how we talk and act in and about it to the methods used by other philosophers, past and present. 6. Put pragmaticist methods resulting philosophical framework to work addressing the philosophical questions--both perennial and those of our day--including, especially, questions that are often ignored by other contemporary movements in philosophy such as in the different strands in the contemporary analytic and continental thought. Where necessary, refine the methods for the sake of making progress on the philosophical problems. 7. Draw on pragmaticist methods and the larger philosophical framework for the sake of better informing and guiding the scientific and cultural (i.e., including the political, legal, moral, religious, artistic, etc.) inquiries of our day--including questions that often are ignored by contemporary movements in science and culture. Where necessary, refine the methods in order to make progress on the scientific and cultural problems. One might think (6) and (7) are not relevant to the tasks involved in "understanding Peirce's writings and their implications," but I believe that we can only understand the methods, ideas and their implications by putting them to work ourselves. In the essay above, I see you engaging, in differing degrees, in all 7 of the tasks--which is a rather ambitious thing to try to do in one essay. Distinguishing between these goals andidentifying which are guiding us in the various posts we make will, I think, help keep our discussions on the Peirce-L on a productive track. Thanks, Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354<tel:(928)%20523-8354> ________________________________ From: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 10:02:29 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; John F Sowa Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes John, list - I agree with all that John has written. Certainly one could do a Peircean semiotic analysis of a nativity scene but, as John noted, it would take 20 pages and frankly, in my view, what would be the point - other than to show that one could do it? A basic socio-historical comparative analysis would, in my view, reveal both the intent and the hoped-for result of the refugee-nativity. That's far more enlightening than a deep semiosic analysis. Where Peirce could be used, and unfortunately, is little appreciated on a list such as this which is more devoted to points 1 and 2 of John's list, is within the biological and societal formative systems. I think that the use of Peirce would be astonishingly productive in this areas. Edwina On Sat 30/12/17 11:45 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net<mailto:s...@bestweb.net> sent: Ben, Helmut, Peter, and Edwina, Ben > I have long been wondering why there is so little discussion > of relating Peirce's concepts and methodologies to concrete > examples, or other 20th and even 21st century thinkers. I strongly with that criticism. To understand Peirce's writings and their implications, five kinds of studies are important: 1. Analyze the development of his thought by relating his many publications and his many more unpublished manuscripts. 2. Relate his writings to his sources in various fields from the ancient Greeks to the latest developments of his day. 3. Analyze the effects of his work on his contemporaries and successors. 4. Analyze developments in the 20th and 21st centuries that could have been improved if the developers had studied Peirce. 5. Compare Peirce's methods for analyzing the world and how we talk and act in and about it to the methods used by other philosophers, past and present. Ben > All [Peter] asked was the relevance of Peirce's semiotics to > a presently existing symbolic representation. Helmut > whether the picture/diorama is insufficient of being analyzed with > Peirce, or Peirce´s theory is insufficient, because it does not > cover this example. Peter > I tend to agree with those who have opined that there is just not > much to be said, from a Peircean point of view, about this analogy. I agree with Peter that a pre-theoretical literary analysis is sufficient to determine the intentions of the people who designed the scene and the implications they wanted to express. Peirce's semiotic could carry the analysis to a deeper level. But that would require a 20-pages of details, not a short email note. Edwina > I ... tend to run from many of the philosophical discussions that > dominate this list. My focus is on biosemiotics and the societal > system as a complex adaptive system - which does function within > the Peircean triad. I agree that examples from biosemiotics, societal systems, and complex adaptive systems would be far more useful than the nativity scene for understanding all five issues above. Re philosophical discussions: My major interest in Peirce was originally stimulated by and continues to be focused on points 3 to 5 above, but I also found that 1 and 2 are important for understanding 3 to 5. For some of those issues, see my article "Peirce's contributions to the 21st century": http://jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__parse.php-3Fredirect-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fjfsowa.com-252Fpubs-252Fcsp21st.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=GgYD9np7UIKiWXudOQ792zFwpyXMCGGzpQAt3LoLiIM&s=2V33-_8bexy7V0SJOu6fOswmCpteZavGWD4MOA18PIo&e=> Re logic: Before I discovered Peirce, I had learned 20th c logic from the so-called "mainstream" of a Frege-Russell-Carnap- Quine-Kripke-Montague perspective. What led me to Peirce were the criticisms of that mainstream by Whitehead, Wittgenstein, and linguists who recognized that there is more to language than Montagovian "formal semantics". I discuss that in http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__parse.php-3Fredirect-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fjfsowa.com-252Fpubs-252Fsignproc.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=GgYD9np7UIKiWXudOQ792zFwpyXMCGGzpQAt3LoLiIM&s=Y97awpyizaUPCRF4autW-ZfNsMJhE-2mQWNEBHzEnf0&e=> 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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cspeirce.com_peirce-2Dl_peirce-2Dl.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=GgYD9np7UIKiWXudOQ792zFwpyXMCGGzpQAt3LoLiIM&s=KUvGioldboIAqoQkXTlJU8kbKR6Y14DsKpQrSacnq1A&e=> .
----------------------------- 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 .
