Is Peirce's anti-psychologism really putting down the brain as a source of conscious thinking? I thought he was simply flagging the limits of psychology as a basis for explaining things. Not a big deal but I do think the brain or whatever we take to be our inner thinking mechanism is quite a precious piece of work and that we can combat psychologist just the same. We can question Cartesianism without throwing out thinking.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 9:46 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > > > Yes, there are plenty of “earlier thoughts along those lines” of a > semiotic generalized beyond the human experience of signs. In fact they are > “as plenty as blackberries,” if you read Peirce chronologically looking for > them. His anti-psychologism, for example, which he consistently maintained > from the 1860s on, is essentially a refusal to limit the application of > logical principles to what goes on in *human* minds or brains. But his > logic/semiotic was always generalized *from* the human experience of sign > use, as he says in CP 1.540. And necessarily so, because “experience is our > only teacher” and we humans can only learn from *our* experience. > > > > I still don’t see a “change in terminology” here, *unless *it’s the > change in usage of the word “sign” which occurred *after *1903. The > *terminological* change was that Peirce gave up using the term “sign” in > a way that limited it to the human realm. In Lowell 3.13 he distinguished > between “sign” and “representamen”; after 1905 the distinction disappears > and “sign” means the same thing as “representamen.” But that change was > *only* terminological, in my view; there was no change in the *object* to > which Peirce used those words to direct our attention. So I don’t see what > it is that you think needs more explanation. > > > > By the way, this is one of the areas where the unPeircean use of the word > “sign” to refer to a triadic relation (rather than a *subject* of a > triadic relation) tends to cause confusion. Peirce’s 1903 distinction > between “sign” and “representamen” was *not* a distinction between the > whole triadic relation and one component of it. *This* terminological > issue is perfectly clear if you read what Peirce actually wrote instead of > someone else’s revised version of semiotics — and if it’s *Peircean* > semiotics that you’re trying to understand. > > > > Gary f. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John F Sowa [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 20-Jan-18 23:11 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12 > > > > On 1/20/2018 4:54 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > What change in terminology are you referring to? > > > > I was thinking about the following point: > > > > Gary F > > > Peircean semiotics is naturally associated with a notion of “sign” > > > which is not limited to human use of signs; but the Lowell lectures > > > may represent his first clear move in that direction. > > > > I was asking about signs "not limited to human use". > > > > If the Lowell lectures show the "first clear move", are there earlier > unclear moves? Hints? Suggestions? Musements? > > > > The clearest MSS were the most likely to be selected for publication in CP > and EP. But there may be fragmentary MSS with passages that are crossed > out. Perhaps he had earlier thoughts along those lines, but he didn't have > a "sop for Cerberus". > > > > 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 > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
