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 .
