Gary F, Auke, List, Gary, thanks for this post.Taken in conjunction with the Ransdell passages I just copied and posted, it contributes to offering a kind of road map of how we Peirce forum members might proceed when posting and reacting to other's posts on the list.
I hope that individual list members do not read into your generalized descriptions of kinds of posters to the list personal descriptions. When I reflected on your 'types' I saw, from my own perspective, several individuals who, over the years, fell--at least partially--into your *types of posters*. However, I would suggest in this regard that, in a way, we are all offering 'idiosyncratic' views of what is significant in Peirce's work. That is to say that we're all much more complex than merely falling under a type, although there most certainly can be seen patterns of list conduct. id·i·o·syn·crat·ic *adjective* 1. relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual. synonyms: distinctive, individual, characteristic, distinct, distinguishing, peculiar, individualistic, different, etc. You wrote: GF: . . . others evidently have a very different view of what “pragmatic” means … but we are discouraged from discussing terminology here, so I won’t do that. On the contrary, nothing Peirce-related is discouraged from being discussed here. Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:50 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Auke, list, > > [[ All pragmatists will further agree that their method of ascertaining > the meanings of words and concepts is no other than that experimental > method by which all the successful sciences (in which number nobody in his > senses would include metaphysics) have reached the degrees of certainty > that are severally proper to them today; this experimental method being > itself nothing but a particular application of an older logical rule, “By > their fruits ye shall know them.” ] Peirce, CP 5.465 (R 318, 1907)] > > Auke, I think I get the point of your example dealing with the > classification of autism and how it illustrates the pragmatic application > of Peirce. I would suggest that the behavioral pattern of those who post to > the list is another example. There appears to be a general consensus that > the way to learn from Peirce is to read Peirce; but there is a wide > variation in practice among list members, which pragmatically shows that > the consensus is more verbal than practical. > > Some posters to peirce-l like to share recent discoveries they feel > they’ve made by reading Peirce. As the readers of their posts, we then have > to make our own judgments of whether those posts are fruitful or not, i.e. > whether they are useful for the purpose of learning from (or about) Peirce. > We are not, of course, obligated to respond to those posts in any way, but > we are likewise not prevented from responding if we find a post especially > helpful or especially misleading. Pragmatically, though, we ought to make a > concerted effort to understand what a post is saying before we respond to > it; and some people frequently react vociferously against opinions that the > originally poster clearly did *not* express. > > Among the posters here are some who regularly express rather idiosyncratic > views. Some admit that these views are different from Peirce’s, while > others do not. Some take offense when their views are challenged, while > others do not. Some respond to imagined insults with real insults and > name-calling, or disparage other posters *ad hominem* by accusing them of > various intellectual crimes such as elitism, illegitimate claims to > authority etc., or complain about being ignored. A reader’s pragmatic > response to all of the above is to get to know posters by their fruits and > respond (or not respond) accordingly. > > When someone has a long track record of aggressively contentious or > otherwise unhelpful posts, one pragmatic response is to habitually ignore > their posts. I consider this *a* pragmatic response, not the only one, > but the one I personally prefer to practice. I give any poster the benefit > of the doubt (about the usefulness of his or her post), *until* I get to > know them by their fruits over a period of years. Thus there are a number > of posters to the list whose byline triggers me to reach for the delete > key, unless their post addresses me directly. This is simply a matter of > pragmatic economy, as reading those posts has so often proven to be a waste > of time, and reading more of them would take time away from reading Peirce. > I am quite aware that if I did read a post instead of deleting it unread, I > might find something I agree with, or even something conducive to learning > something new from Peirce. So when I do read a post from someone I > habitually ignore, I am careful to read exactly what it says; and sometimes > I even share my personal response to it with the list. In the present > thread, that has proven to be unwise on my part. > > That’s all I have to say right now about “the pragmatics of Peirce.” I > might point out that others evidently have a very different view of what > “pragmatic” means … but we are discouraged from discussing terminology > here, so I won’t do that. I’d just like to thank you and Gary R for your > furnishing actual examples of it, and I hope I have done the same with this > post. > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> > *Sent:* 2-Apr-19 05:33 > *To:* 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance > > > > Gary, List, > > > > Regarding Stampers Ladder you wrote: my interests have changed > considerably in the baker's dozen of years since I wrote that paper and … > > > > RE: The ‘might’ in ‘you might be interested’ wasn’t meant as ‘you > should’, but as a polite alternative to ‘may’. > > My aim was not to get you reading Stamper, but to show that from practical > need somebody extended the amount of layers in such a way that somebody > interested in nagging about the technical terms of semiotics and their > relations, could recognize this as fitting with the Peircean scheme and > decided to try to put the idea further in such a way that all sign aspects > are covered. > > > > This example seemed especially fit since, lately, I see some quit > fundamentalist attitude on this list regarding the interpretation of > Peircean semiotics. If you look at the foundation of those attempt, it > strikes me that the one seems to originate in turning speculative grammar > to the end all of the enterprise and the other the semantic layer. If we do > this when interested in information systems (as well man as an information > system as in building them for organizations) then not only such > enterprises fall short in coming to terms with the subject matter. They > also tend to block the way of inquiry. Each sign aspect provides another > perspective on the problem and each aspect has its own telos. The question > ought not to be ‘who is right according to Peirce’, but how do we connect > the different perspectives? > > > > When a student, I bought a worn reproduction because I wanted the frame it > was put in. When home I hung it at the wall and soon decided to keep it > because it showed three reformation ladies reading the holy bible. 1. One > was intensely scrutinizing the text (Jon, John). 2. The other reads it at > an arm’s length (Tom Short, with the first involved, he did a great job in > his books on understanding Peirce, and remained critical), 3. with the > third the book on her lap, while see looked around (Edwina, Dan). > > It nicely expresses the way one should deal with the philosopher one has a > particular interest in, as a safeguard for an uncritical attitude. > > > > > > With regard to the example. > > Let’s take the DSM classification of autism. The label z is deemed > applicable if x out of x+y characteristics is applicable, where > x+y=characteristics of z. Let x be the characteristics pertaining to > information processing and let y be the characteristics pertaining to > empathy and social behavior. > > Now a parent and a school disagree regarding a child/pupil having z. If we > now turn the attention to each of the characteristics, it will prove the > case that on that score, there is less divergence in opinion. On top of > that, in many cases the characteristics that remain contested prove to > result from the context the child is in, i.e. home for the parents and > school for the authorities. For me it is an expression of “inconsistencies > arise at the level of axioms” at the social level and “they can usually > accept lower-level facts without creating any conflict”. > > > > Hope this is more clearly stated. > > > > Best, > > Auke van Breemen >
----------------------------- 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 .
