Kirsti, you quoted my post in yours and commented that you “cannot understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them in what follows.”
It’s quite simple: The part enclosed in quotation marks is a direct quote of Peirce’s exact words, and the rest is my own words. This is what I always do in my posts, whenever I am commenting on something Peirce (or anyone) wrote; I “try to keep quotes and interpretations so marked that any reader can tell which is which” (quoting you, in that case). In my post, I included the link to my blog so that anyone who wanted the exact source citation could find it there. I don’t see the problem with that. I also don’t see how your claim — that Peirce’s own choice of term, such as “phaneron,” is “inconsistent with his deeper views” — can be tested in any laboratory, as you appear to suggest. I don’t know any way of comprehending Peirce’s “deeper views” about matters except to study what he wrote about them, on the default assumption that he meant exactly what he wrote, and “it is quite indifferent whether it be regarded as having to do with thought or with language, the wrapping of thought, since thought, like an onion, is composed of nothing but wrappings” (Peirce, EP2:460). Perhaps you do have a better way of gaining insight into Peirce’s deeper thoughts, but if so, I think it’s up to you to demonstrate it rather than ask the rest of us to take it on faith. And Happy New Year to you too! Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] Sent: 31-Dec-17 10:25 To: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6 Gary f, list My source on Eucleides was Grattan-Guinness (The Fontana history of the mathematical sciences) and my thirty years old notes on the topic. (& Liddell and Scott, of course.) It is important to keep in mind that no such divisions (or classifications) between sciences that are taken for granted today did not exist in ancient times. - Still, Eucleides was studied by mathematicians for centuries. It was taken for granted. Up till non-Euclidean math. Even the Bible came much, much later. Meaning is context-dependent, that much we all agree. We have signs from old times, no dispute on that. But do we have meanings? I have problems with the following: GARY f.: My > answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought, > implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to, > <http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/> > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]: “upon a continuous line > there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only room > for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a point on the > line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if the line has a > beginning and end, then it has those two points > (discontinuities) already. I cannot understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them in what follows. Peirce took up in several contexts his point of marking any points and thus breaking continuity. He took care to set down rules for (logical) acceptability for doing so. In order to understand his meaning three triads are needed. Possibility, virtuality and actuality makes one of them. (But only one of them.) CSP wrote on Ethics of Terminology. - Did he follow these ethical rules? - I'd say YES and NO. To the despair of his readers he chanced his terminology over the decaces very, very often. But it was HIS to change, in order to accommondate with renewed understanding of his whole conceptual system, his new findings along the way in making it move... I firmly believe he had a reason every time for those changes. BUT he also experimented with words he took into a kind of test driving for his concepts. Such as "phaneron". An experiment doomed to fail. Why do I believe so? - I have never read him explicitly saying so. But the term (etymology etc) did get the idea twisted in such ways which were inconsistent with his deeper views. - So when I read those texts by him using "phaneron", I took note of the year and looked forward to see him stop using it. It not a job for me to search whether he did or not. It is job for seminary minded philosophers. Not for the laboratory minded ones. I wish to take up Ethics of Interpretation in a similar spirit. In order to make our ideas more clear, it may be good to try to keep quotes and interpretations so marked that any reader can tell which is which. It is an impossible task, I know. Just as impossible to any human being as is Christian ethics. But a very good guideline to keep in mind & to follow as best one can. The links in any post may get read or not. - It takes too much time to read all those offered. What cannot be included in the verbal response, I find informative. Still, I may not have the time at my disposal to open them. Looking forward to forthcoming chapters in Lowell lectures. My thanks for the most valuable job you are doing Gary f. Best regards, Kirsti
----------------------------- 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 .
