Peter, Jeff, list, Peter, I too found the various viewpoints expressed in this thread interesting and, taken as a whole, valuable in ways which may go beyond your initial question. In any case, the discussion certainly in no way disappointed me either.
By the way, Peter, I do not believe that I am alone in suggesting that Morris' "pragmatics" rather fully distorts Peirce's pragmatism and has led to considerable misunderstanding as to what Peirce's views actually were. Continuing, Jeff wrote: JD: Peirce provides the resources needed for understanding how a contemporary Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. might be able to engage in fruitful conversation about the nativity scene with the aim of seeking to better understand their differing experiences and perspectives on the world. I agree, and would be interested in what other Peircean resources, along with the ones you just pointed to (or at least hinted at) you and others might imagine contributing to efforts towards bridging the communication gap currently prominent not only in religion, art and literary criticism, but in many other fields as well. One resource which I believe might be productively mined and developed in consideration of this pursuit of increased intra- and inter-disciplinary communication is succinctly adumbrated in the quote in my last post. Methodeutic or philosophical rhetoric . . . studies the principles that relate signs to each other and to the world: If Peircean philosophical rhetoric (which includes not only pragmatism, but what some have seen as the basis for a complete theory of inquiry) can indeed better show how "signs relate to each other and to the world," it might be the quintessential branch of logic as semeiotic possibly contributing means for improving inter-disciplinary communication and communication generally. For as Peirce continues: "[Philosophical rhetoric's] 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). Peirce explains that by "scientific intelligence" he means "one capable of learning." Better understanding this branch of semeiotics having the potential for contributing to "the growth of learning" through, especially as you wrote, Jeff, "fruitful conversation. . . with the aim of seeking to better understand. . . differing experience" might prove to be invaluable in this pursuit of improving communication. And, again, since Peirce defines a "scientific intelligence" as one "capable of learning," and since as biosemiotics and related fields have made amply clear, biological organisms, being most certainly "capable of learning," then work in those fields (including complex adaptive systems as well as such fields as social systems research, etc.) might all contribute to this great goal of improving communication, perhaps contributing to (dare I say?) what Peirce called the last 'field' where evolution is still active, namely *the evolution of consciousness*. Ah, well, no doubt an all too ambitious goal (most certainly for this list to take up alone!), but in no way a utopian one, at least not in my view. In any event, and towards the new year, to paraphrase Robert Browning, our human reach should exceed our grasp. Best, Gary R [image: 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 8:24 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote: > Peter, Gary R., List, > > > What might a semiotic theory contribute that goes beyond a contemporary > literary analysis? Not having 20 pages to dig into details, here are some > ideas that jump to the fore when I reflect on Peirce's account of signs and > how they grow--focusing first on points from the speculative grammar and > then moving towards the methodeutic. > > > Consider what is involved in the interpretation of three different kinds > of signs that are expressed in the nativity scene: > > > 1. iconic signs--including the various qualisigns-- and their > attendant feelings and emotions. > > > 2. indexical signs--including the dicisigns one might express--and the > challenges different interpreters face in trying to ensure that they > are talking about the same sorts of objects when they refer, for instance, > to the individual figures in the scene. > > > 3. symbolic legisigns--including the manifold arguments that the nativity > scene might be taken to express by the creators or by those viewing the > scene--raises issues about what is needed for different interpreters to > evaluate those arguments as good or bad. > > > One point a Peircean semiotic theory might contribute to an intellectual > discussion of nativity scenes is a clearer and richer account of what is > necessary for the various kinds of signs to be communicated in a meaningful > way. Many of those who are working in literary criticism and art criticism > today hold assumptions that are outright skeptical of our ability to > understand one another. Peirce provides the resources needed for > understanding how a contemporary Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, > etc. might be able to engage in fruitful conversation about the nativity > scene with the aim of seeking to better understand their differing > experiences and perspectives on the world. > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Skagestad, Peter <peter_skages...@uml.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 6:12:01 PM > *To:* Peirce-L; Gary Richmond > > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes > > > 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 > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < > 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 <(928)%20523-8354> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 10:02:29 AM >> *To:* 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 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 . 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 >> <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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
