Gary, list,
I agree with your general remarks on speculative grammar. However I remain unsure about the coverage you assign to it. So, some words on my view on it. If you include the wild cultural speculations that passed this list in the nativity example I disagree. Those belong sooner to the special sciences (the psychical). Semiotics is more formal, its role is akin to the role of logic. Lets start with Hegels erroneous (in our present day eyes) definition of logic: it studies the idea in the formal element of thought. In Peirces work the formal element is the subject of logic. For the study of the idea (sign would have been better) in the formal element Peirce coined semiotics. Some interesting parallels may be drawn between logic and semiotic. Speculative grammar – propositional logic (sub species eternitate, solipsistic) Critic - quantification (and modality?) are added. (the idea of worldly affairs added) Speculative Rhetoric – (modality?) approaches like the socratic dialogue, medieval obligations, Hintikka’s game theoretical semantics, EG (interaction between graphist and interpreter added) I am unsure about the place of modality, but maybe it just boils down to a firstness and secondness view on the issue. Anyhow, if the above makes any sense, then it would follow that Speculative Rhetoric would consist in a branch of study that provides a semi-formal study of the interaction between two man signs, mediated by all kind of signs, (man regarded as a dynamical argument in which all sign aspects are involved) that if performed long enough would eventually yield a graphical system akin to EG. 1. We would have to assume that a man sign (A) being in a state receives an effect sign x (In a first approximation one of the ten sign types that follow from the small classification, later to be extended into the 66 possible signs of the Welby classification). 2. The processing of x by A must be pictured in steps that follow the triadic structure and be cast in terms of the sign aspects. This hold for x, but also for A, but here we might want to take the corresponding interpretant aspectual names. 3. Result of the interpretation process is the utterance of a response on x, x´. This x´effects man sign B that also is in a certain state, processes x´ and responds x” to A. Etc. Note that the immediate object of A (A being a semiotic sheet comparable to the EG sheet), will differ from the immediate object of B. The dynamical object is reality. It is to be looked at as the common sheet of which the individual sheets are part (truth and falsity being present). One could look at the individual sheets as being comprised of Sowa’s conceptual graphs as they are realized in that individual and could be taken as a mapping of all conceptual content that can be drawn upon by the sheet when entering an interpretation process. So, that scheme would go into the index position, each item typified according to its sign aspectual possibilities. The state being defined by the currently reigning emotional state (a firstness), the conceptual content (a secondness) and the goal (a thirdness) that rules sheet A or B at the moment it gets effected. In the content part of the nativity discussion we have seen this process in actu, but very unstructured, it is the task of semiotics to provide tools to structure this kind of conversation and to ensure that progress is made in an orderly fashion and in such a way that the sheet of A and B, for this issue merge. That is why semiotics is a normative science. Best wishes, Auke van Breemen Van: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 31 december 2017 4:02 Aan: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes 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 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 <mailto: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 <tel:(928)%20523-8354> _____ From: Skagestad, Peter <peter_skages...@uml.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718 482-5690 <tel:(718)%20482-5690> 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": <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=> http://jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf 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 <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=> http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf 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 <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 . <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virusvrij. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com
----------------------------- 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 .
