BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Stephen, list
I'm adding what you said below to the Peirce list, for I think it needs to be said, again and again. We do a disservice to Peirce to isolate his work from the broader use of his infrastructure by an endless examination of terminology. However - if some people enjoy this - and I am sure they do - then, that is their right! BUT - we should not sneer at or condemn as 'unPeircean' the broader application of the Peircean infrastructure into an examination of the world. "World-changing brilliance that would be best served not by an effort to become expert in what he meant in his circumlocutions but by a statement and promotion of his discernible thought in the way that others of less note -- Steiner comes to mind -- had little trouble parlaying into an ongoing presence in the world." On Tue 29/01/19 2:40 PM , Stephen Curtiss Rose stever...@gmail.com sent: I think I do ignore it Edwina. I have a highly active existence following my own lights which are obvious from my questions here. I only natter in these precincts because I think as I said it is the only game in town and it has preempted the basis for a much wider and more fruitful exploration. I do not have the present commitment at this point to do more than look in so in a sense I am assuming there is a constituency for this that may not exist. The writing on the wall seems to me to be that between the performance of folk here and the emerging recognition that Peirce has not gotten much increase in recognition over past decades, his thousands of ill-attended pages have suffered a fare similar to his own. World-changing brilliance that would be best served not by an effort to become expert in what he meant in his circumlocutions but by a statement and promotion of his discernible thought in the way that others of less note -- Steiner comes to mind -- had little trouble parlaying into an ongoing presence in the world. amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1] On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:51 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: Stephen - As I wrote: "In my view, focusing on terminology sets up, almost, a Closed Club of Inducted Followers, who alone know the required terms to use when discussing Peirce and thus, alone, are deemed acceptable by this Club, to discuss and use Peirce." But it isn't simply that some Peirceans who have set up a Closed Club of Inducted Followers focus, heavily, on terminology - but, this Club tends to sneer at those who seek the expansion of Peirce's infrastructure into other realms - declaring that such actions are 'unPeircean' and 'not found in Peirce'. These other realms, such as the physico-chemical, the biological and the societal - will use totally different terms but the conceptual infrastructure of Peirce, which I claim is logical, rational and really quite simple - fits perfectly within the analysis of these realms. Above all- this enlightening analytic framework can be used - without the specific 'Members-only' terminology. It is a great loss to the research world, in my view, if the Peircean analytic framework is confined in its usage, to a Members-only type of discussion, where members are required to use 'the exact term of Peirce' - before they are 'allowed' to focus on the analytic framework. Of course, we must acknowledge that some people delight in such minutiae as 'which term' fits into 'which slot' - but, such closed door discussions should not be considered the ultimate aim of Peircean analysis which should - I feel - move out into the broader world, where it can do an enormous amount to explain what world. Therefore - my suggestion to you is to ignore the indifference and sneers - and just explore Peirce. Edwina On Tue 29/01/19 12:15 PM , Stephen Curtiss Rose stever...@gmail.com [3] sent: I am used to being ignored in general discussions so I will simply react with no need for response. We are apparently in a time of incremental expansion of knowledge. This makes it impossible any more to go with much but the now. It makes this sort of linguistic exercise a sort of game of statues. I am not sure if that is the right description. But I have longed for some sense that there could be conversation that recognizes the efforts of persons like me who have labored considerably to create a more general and universal understanding that will resonate with ordinary readers. I do not think Peirce needs any of us. He may be amused. I would like to be able to talk freely about without feeling I must somehow have it pass muster with whatever one might term the standard to be. The group seems to me to have shrunk but it might grow with a trifle more toleration of a wider way. amazon.com/author/stephenrose [4] On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:16 AM John F Sowa wrote: Jon AS, > I suppose that I could invent my own word, but that would > violate Peirce's ethics of terminology in the other direction, > since he already created a suitable one--which happens to have > the advantage of being the root of "semiosis" and "sem(e)iotic." In his article on the ethics of terminology, Peirce was proposing guidelines for establishing stable terminology in any branch of science. But he also said "symbols grow". He was well aware that the terminology in any field evolves as new discoveries or inventions extend or modify the meanings of the old terms. He also admitted that his own meanings evolved over the years. For examples of the evolution, look at the definitions in Commens. Re seme: Peirce used that word in only one article, and he did not develop it further. Nobody else has adopted it for any purpose other than to note that Peirce used it in CP 4.538. That means that the word 'seme' is obsolete. There is no ethical obligation for anyone to use it. But the word 'predicate' is alive and well in the same sense that Peirce used. If you want a term that is similar to 'predicate', but slightly different, there is a standard *ethical* solution: Just put an adjective X in front of the word 'predicate'. That would immediately tell the reader that an X predicate is similar to a predicate, but qualified by X. In a footnote, you could add "An X predicate is comparable to what Peirce called a seme in CP 4.538." That solution is precise and intelligible to modern readers. The footnote would give credit to Peirce for the inspiration. And the word 'comparable' would answer critics who might quibble with any claim that your definition is identical to whatever Peirce had intended. That is more ethical than implying that you have a deeper understanding of what Peirce intended than he had. John Links: ------ [1] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose [2] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [3] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'stever...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [4] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose
----------------------------- 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 .