Edwina, list,
E wrote: I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop an isolate framework of the work of Peirce - a particular framework based around a purely intellectual outline of interactions and strict terminological definitions which in my opinion both utterly miss the basic point of Peircean semiosis - which is its capacity to analyze and explain the dynamic, adaptive, living infrastructure and processes of the real world. These abstract interactions and definitions have, so far, been unable to explain these processes of the real world. RE: I would formulate the goal not as looking for an explanation. For me, such an enterprise ought to aid in getting better immediate objects of the dynamical object that is being studied. Diagrams are excellent means to come to grips with complex systems by supporting and organizing the analysis, although it seems safe to assume they always will lag behind and are incomplete. It is an aid, not an answer. Auke Van: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 15:44 Aan: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy Gary R wrote: "At first blush, I would tend to agree with you, Auke, that there is no good reason to believe that Peirce "abandoned" "the three-category, ten-Sign taxonomy of 1903." … … But, again, I see Peirce's work as evolving so that, and contra Tom Short for example, I don't see Peirce "abandoning" much at all. And when he finds himself as having clearly been in error, he tends to explicitly state that along with his corrected view (in years past I've offered several examples of this). Peirce is constantly experimenting; but, in my opinion, one needn't take an experiment late in his life as necessarily "abandoning" those undertaken earlier and the principles derived from them. " ------------------- I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop an isolate framework of the work of Peirce - a particular framework based around a purely intellectual outline of interactions and strict terminological definitions which in my opinion both utterly miss the basic point of Peircean semiosis - which is its capacity to analyze and explain the dynamic, adaptive, living infrastructure and processes of the real world. These abstract interactions and definitions have, so far, been unable to explain these processes of the real world. Edwina
----------------------------- 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 .
