Kirsti, list,
Kirsti wrote: "The list has become more and more a US list."
This is not factually the case. Firstly, the full list includes people from
all the continents except Antarctica. Checking over the posts of the past
few months I see the following active participants (these having posted at
least twice, but typically more frequently). These include (I apologize for
any errors in assigning nationality below, and ought note that this is but
a sampling):
Canada: Edwina Taborsky
Hungary: Stephen Jarosek
Germany: Helmut Ralien
Holland: Auke van Breeman
Canada: Gary Fuhrman
South Africa: John Collier
Argentina: Claudio Guerri
Denmark: Soren Brier
Brazil: Vinicius Romanini
Spain: Cassiano Terra Rodriguez
Finland: Kirsti Määttänen
Indeed, some of the more active contributors of late have not been from the
USA and include Gary Fuhrman, Helmut Ralien, Stephen Jarosek, Edwina
Taborsky, Auke van Breeman, and yourself.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
[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 Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 5:57 PM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
>
>
> Gary f.
>
> Now I truly believe you were sincere with your wishes for a happy new
> year. Thanks.
>
> We still do disagree. And I do not think the problems can be reduced into
> language problems. There are more fundamental issues involved.
>
> I am not asking anyone to believe without testing out what I say. I
> attemp to offer a different way of looking at, and to interpret what CSP
> wrote. I wish to share somethings I have learned the hard way. To smooth
> up, a little bit, the way for someones possibly interested. – As a rule,
> they tend to come outside US.
>
> The list has become more and more a US list. US vernacular is expected,
> for instance. This I think is a pity.
>
> We do disagree with fundamentals in text analysis and text
> interpretation. You say it is guess work. Which I find partially, but
> only minimally, true. – It is true that by reading a chapter or so does
> not give anyone the, lets say "phaneron" the writer supposedly had, as such
> and with all there is to it.
>
> We do agree in that the first challenge in doing and teaching text
> interpretation is to make it clear that there is a difference between
> whatever occurs to the mind of the reader and finding out, by a careful
> study, what can with good grouds, be (logically) inferred from the text at
> hand. (Be it a quote or book or the oevre).
> Text interpretations can be classified into three types (remember: tone,
> token, type by CSP). Those with strong and logically valid grounds based
> on the text, those with weak grounds but not disproved by the text, and
> those which have no grounds in the text or even are disproved by the text.
> – This third type I take as just guesses.
> Student often get very ashtonished when I say: Show you proof by using the
> text only. (Which, of course is made known in the instructions, but do not
> reach the minds of most).
>
> Opinions are offered. "My (strong) opinion is that…"
>
> Such views have been stated in P-list. Belongin to the type: My
> interpretation is as good of yours, BECAUSE I have a right to my own
> opinion. – Well, this presents a most unhappy mix up of civil rights and
> logic.
>
> You asked me to prove my points. Quite right. My response was that
> you'll have to search for proof yourself.
>
> Now I trust you and offer you what CSP called "precept" ( so unnoticed
> amongst his conceptual system that it is not included in the idex of his
> writings).
>
> What follows is my invention, derived from Peirce but not offered by him.
> (I did share this with Gary R. in off-list mails some decades ago, along
> with the triangular as a diagram for triadicity).
>
> My instructions to the students, at the beginning of my classes include
> three colours of translucent pens, yellow, orange and green. The text
> I give. The task is: Construct the question this text offers an anwer.
> Give grounds to the question by using this text only.
>
> Use the yellow pen first to mark the points you first think are essential.
> Then look again and write down the grounds. Note that the question may not
> be the one explicated in the text.
>
> First I gave my students a piece of newpaper science news. With a little
> pressure on logical grounds and consistency, they came (as a rule) very
> excited. They found more grave logical faults than I had noticed.
>
> Then there were questions on what to do when it was impossible to find
> grounds within the text at hand. – Then I told them that it is logically
> OK to say so. And that it is a logical merit to state this as exacly as
> possible, but not more exacly than was warranted by the text. And that it
> was a merit to be able to point out where else to seach for an answer.
>
> These were multidiclipnary classes for postgraduate students making plans
> for a thesis (Phd mostly).
> Then I proceeded to instructing them to read books from a different
> angle. Telling them that after you have figured out the question your
> study aims to aswer, then change your standpoint. Then you select the
> books etc. on the ground of what they offer in respect to your question.
>
> This may seem simple. But it is not so when put into practise.
>
> The importance of what comes first, what comes second, what comes third
> was something I had learned from studyin Peirce. Using my experience with
> children I used three stages of being a teacher ( which I took as a method,
> not as an expression of my personality). First I was lenient. Telling
> them just to listen at ease. Telling them that what I am going to say will
> not be easy to understand. But not to worry. Nothing of the introductory
> part will be demanded at the final exam.
>
> Then, with the texts, I was very strict and very demanding. Lots of
> praise of course if demands were met. Then came the encouraging part.
> With focus on their own work. Still to come.
>
> The students were always so happy by the end. There was love in the air.
>
> These are happy memories I wish to share. Not because they were happy for
> me, but because the methods were effective. Also they seemed to be
> inducing happiness around. Students glowed with pride and self-confidence.
>
> And I am not ecpecting you or anyone else to believe just by reading what
> I wrote. I am encouriging trying out what I say. Whoever has the
> opportunity to teach.
>
> Gary f. , perhaps you have met the utterly strict and demanding part
> without the lenient atmosphere absolutely needed. The list is not a class.
> Not together in the same room, at the same time.
>
> Teaching is a kind of laboratory work. Practical work, with practical
> aims. Not so different with teaching oneself. Experimenting on oneself.
>
> If one can firmly and with good grounds come to the conclusion that this
> (whatever it is) is true about me, then that (whatever) is proven possible.
>
> If something is not true with oneself, it does not follow that it could
> not be true of others. (Implication is not equivalence).
>
> If something (with oneself ) has been proven possible, then the next
> question to (logically) follow is about its generality & conditions for
> that. (This is about probabilities. And not just about beans in a bag,
> even though CSP used that kind of example)
>
> Then, and finally, arises the question of what always is and must be.
> This is what CSP deals with in his phenomenology
>
> This much, for now.
>
> Best, Kirsti
>
>
> g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 1.1.2018 16:09:
>
>> Kirsti,
>>
>> We seem to have a language problem here. I don’t understand your
>> distinction between “just interpreting a quote and going beyond
>> it,” or between “paraphrasing Peirce” and stating my own
>> inferences. To me, studying Peirce (or any philosopher) means
>> _recreating_ his or her thought process. That entails _both_
>> interpreting quotes _and_ “going beyond them,” _both_ paraphrasing
>> the writer _and_ making inferences about the object(s) of the signs
>> uttered by the writer. In a situation like this at least, an
>> interpretant is usually another sign with the same object as the
>> original sign. Of course, the perennial problem with reading words is
>> that we are forced to use symbols in place of the indices that would
>> direct our attention to the object. In other words, we have to _guess_
>>
>> what the object is, and then make inferences about it which we hope
>> are parallel or analogous to the inferences made by the original
>> writer. And hope that when we guess wrong, we will find out sooner or
>> later that this is the case, and recognize the need to guess again.
>>
>> For instance, when Peirce writes about the difference between
>> “laboratory” thinkers and “seminary” thinkers, my guess is
>> that he is referring to the difference between experientially testable
>> hypotheses and theories that are not testable in that way (and
>> probably follow the method of authority instead). Maybe your guess is
>> different — I can’t tell, from what you’ve written. Likewise I
>> can’t tell what you have in mind when you write “I was just one
>> reader amongst many. Why the tone?” I could guess what you might
>> mean by that, but I have no confidence in my guess, as apparently I
>> guessed wrong about what your previous post referred to. As far as I
>> can tell, you’re also guessing wrong about my meaning (and inferring
>> my “tone” from your guess). You seem to have more confidence in
>> your own guesses than I have in mine. In order to carry a conversation
>> like this forward, we have to keep on guessing and revising our
>> guesses; but sometimes one doubts whether it is worth the effort.
>>
>> During my teaching career, I used to tell my students (and show them
>> when possible) that the greatest barrier to genuine communication
>> between people with a common language is the assumption that you
>> really know what the other person is talking about. If I’d been a
>> Peircean then, I would have said that the barrier is the difference
>> between the immediate object of the sign heard by the interpreter and
>> the dynamic object of the sign uttered by the utterer. Your post has
>> raised my consciousness of that barrier — which makes it very
>> difficult to respond appropriately. So all I’m doing here is
>> applying one of the main insights I get from Peircean semiotics
>> (explained in more detail in Chapter 2 of my book _Turning Signs_) to
>> the concrete example of the exchange between you and me. If you
>> ‘take it personally’ or find its “tone” offensive, that’s
>> unfortunate but beyond my control.
>>
>> Believe it or not, I too was sincere in wishing you a Happy New Year!
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>> } The Path is fundamentally without words. We use words to reveal the
>> Path. [_Blue Cliff Record_ 25] {
>>
>> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [1] }{ _Turning Signs_ gateway
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
>> Sent: 31-Dec-17 16:46
>> To: g...@gnusystems.ca
>> Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
>> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6
>>
>> Gary f,
>>
>> Sorry for inexact expressions. I should have made a distinction
>> between just interpreting a quote and going beyond it. Paraphrasing is
>> customarily marked with expressions like "as XXX says elsewhere...".
>>
>> If I had problems with understanding where you were paraphrasing
>> Peirce, and where you were stating your own inferences, I was just
>> one reader amongst many. Why the tone?
>>
>> My point has been that words and ideas are not in any kind of identity
>> relation. And that the relation between signs and meanings is a tricky
>> question, not a simple one.
>>
>> If you disagree, why can't we just agree to disagree?
>>
>> Surely you are well aware that Peirce did not mean something like a
>> college chemistry lab with laboratory and seminary philosophy.
>>
>> He does offer many very detailed precepts for thought experiments as
>> well as practical everyday experimentations he conducted himself, many
>> of them for many years, even decades.
>>
>> Most of these I have conducted myself. Following his descriptions as
>> accurately as I can. Very often Peirce points out that everyone should
>> do so. In order to find out oneself. Instead of only following the
>> method of authority. - Which is OK, if and after....
>>
>> I really meant to thank youn and wish you a happy new year.
>>
>> Best wishes anyway, Kirsti
>>
>> g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 31.12.2017 22:29:
>>
>> 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/ [2] [1] [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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/
>> [2] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/
>>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
