Edwina, Gary R., John, List: I agree with Edwina that she has *established *her own speculative grammar, which she believes to be recognizably Peircean, and has sought to apply it in the special sciences, most notably biology. However, I understand Gary R.'s point to be that she persistently rejects any suggestion of a need for *reexamination *of the conclusions that she reached long ago. In other words, she comes across as the one with the "rigid box," unwilling to give serious consideration to any alternatives. By the way, speculative grammar is the study of *all *signs, not just symbols; and it concerns not only their relations with their *interpretants*, but also their relations with their *objects*.
I agree with Edwina that publication of an article does not imply endorsement of its conclusions, only the reasonableness of its methods and arguments. However, I understand Gary R.'s point to be exactly that--John's *methodological *criticisms directed at me are misplaced, because my approach is well within the mainstream of Peirce scholarship and philosophical inquiry in general. The real issue is that John (apparently) disagrees with many of my *conclusions*, but as I have said multiple times before, the proper course of action is then to *make a better argument* for *different *conclusions. Again, I invite *persuasion*, rather than bare assertions that I am guilty of "serious misinterpretations." Edwina and John both seem to think that focusing (as I admittedly do) on Peirce's words, including his terminology, detracts from what they deem to be a more pressing and more important task--applying his ideas to today's problems. By contrast, I continue to maintain that getting his ideas right *requires *paying careful attention to his words and terminology, and getting his ideas wrong obviously *precludes *applying them at all. Instead, it results in applying *one's own* ideas to today's problems, while creating the mistaken impression that they are *Peirce's *ideas--precisely the transgression of which I have been repeatedly (and falsely) accused. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 8:38 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, list > > I'm going to reject your view that I 'oppose almost in principle' the > research known as speculative grammar, which is research into the nature > of a sign as symbol and the nature of symbols ..to their interpretants. > > I think that my published work in this area, focused on the relations and > categories within the triad, rejects your opinion of such an opposition. > > Furthermore - I think that the discussion between Auke and JAS [in which I > have participated] focuses on terminology and this 'speculative grammar' > with the debate between how many interpretants are actually operative in > the Peircean framework -. This is an important discussion, for my whole > point about terminology is that it is not enough to simply define the > terms. One has to examine their functionality in the 'real pragmatic > world'. That's why, for example, this discussion between Auke and JAS is > important - because the increased variety of Interpretants increases the > capacity of the semiosic action to provide diversity and complexity. And > that's why we keep asking for examples! > > On another point - it should be pointed out that a published article [my > own included] does not mean that the content is 'the truth'! I'm very sure > that you have - as have I - often been a reviewer for scholarly articles to > be published in peer-reviewed journals. The normal criteria for publication > is whether the article is coherent, well-written, and referenced - but > that's all. I would never, and I'm very sure you would never as well - > judge an article as to whether or not I personally agreed with the > argument, with the content, with the approach or felt it was 'right' or > 'the truth'. . Such decisions must be left up to the wider 'community of > scholars' - and never to the reviewer. > > Edwina > > On Sat 25/04/20 1:58 AM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: > > John, List, > > I so thoroughly disagree with you that at this point there's not much > more to be said. Your arguments contra Jon Alan Schmidt have been > consistently methodological, not at all substantive. And as far as I can > see, you have conclusively shown yourself to have a double standard in that > regard. It would indeed be easy to cite many, many examples of this > hypocritical double standard and, indeed, many have been cited on this > list. I would certainly not be loathe to rehearse some of them if need be. > > More to the point, there are those scholars who rather completely disagree > with your and Edwina's (mis)characterization of Jon's work. One need only > look over the last couple of decades of articles published in Transactions > of the Charles S. Peirce Society to see that some (but hardly all, since > his philosophical interests are rather far-ranging) of Jon's work falls > into a category of Peirce scholarship, semeiotic grammar, which you and > Edwina seem to oppose almost in principle, but which is seen by many Peirce > scholars -- and to this day -- as essential, even quintessential, in the > understanding of what Peirce's philosophy involves, the changes in his > terminology often being expressions of the conceptual growth -- or fine > turning -- of important, even crucial philosophical concepts; and not only > in his logic as semeiotic, but also in his phenomenology and metaphysics. > To ignore such conceptual development expressed in Peirce's develop of > terminological subtlety seems to me to smack of intellectual laziness. If > Jon can hold in memory many of Peirce's semeiotic grammatical distinctions > and their relations to each other (something which I certainly struggle to > do), well all the more power to him. And let us not forget that semeiotic > grammar is the first of the three branches of logic as semeiotic which > Peirce posits and develops. > > Your seeming rush to 'application' is, as I now see it, based on your > hubristic (there's no more accurate term for it) estimation that you > already grasp what's important in Peirce's philosophy, indeed, that you > have come to 'determine' what it *is*, something which you accuse others > of doing even while they -- Jon in this case -- much more modestly pursue > abductions which their research has brought them to: no more. This is > nothing short of hypocritical and, so, from the standpoint of the ethics of > science, repugnant. > > I might note as a sign of Jon's work being seen as of growing interest and > value to the Peirce community more generally than you and Edwina see it, > that a paper of his is scheduled to appear in an upcoming edition of > Transactions, the premiere journal of Peircean scholarship. And it is my > prediction that Jon's work in semeiotic and metaphysics (to mention just > two areas of his interest) will grow in importance within the Peirce > community at large. You may not understand and/or value it, but I and > others do: it's just that simple. > > This is not to suggest that on-list and off-list that Jon and I have > agreed on everything. Far from it. Indeed, in our off-list discussions > (with Gary Fuhrman) on Peirce's conception of Time, both Gary and I have > sometimes very much disagreed with Jon as to the character and importance > of phenomenology vs the mathematics and logic of time. But I have never > found him to be anything but receptive to deeply considering arguments > which we have presented to him. Of course he puts forth his own strong > arguments and strongly defend the -- until he is convinced of another's > argumentation. Yet in papers on Peirce's conception of time which he has > been developing, it is clear that he has significantly modified his views > as he came to seen the value of Gary and my phenomenological perspectives > (which, by the way, are quite different from each other's). In short, he is > not a rigid theoretical dogmatist. Far from it. I'd say, the opposite of > it. He is certainly significantly more humble than any of his critics on > this list despite their arguments to the contrary. > > In conclusion, I think it would behoove you -- at least in this forum -- > to work to develop you own semeiotic rather than continuing to attempt to > denigrate Jon's, an attempt which if persisted in I am certain will fail. > And to offer yet another prediction, I do not think that future scholars > will look at such denigration of another scholar's work favorably. > > Best, > > Gary R > > "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> Gary, >> >> As I said before, I believe that JAS has been trying to force Peirce's >> writings into a rigid box. Peirce repeatedly said that his ideas were >> constantly growing. In fact, that is why he was unable to finish his many >> book projects: as he starts writing, he gets so many new ideas that >> earlier chapters need to be rewritten. When he does that, he needs to >> rewrite the later ones. That leads to an endless cycle of revisions. >> >> But Jon's project is static. It's impossible for any static project to >> capture the open-ended growth of Peirce's ideas. >> >> GR> seeing John's self-contradictions spelled out was pretty >> astonishing, and revealing, to me as well. They've been pointed out before; >> I've done so myself on-list and off-list, apparently to no avail. >> >> No! When anybody points out a mistake that I made, I immediately correct >> it. >> >> But neither you nor JAS has ever found a self-contradiction in anything I >> wrote. There are some points where you disagreed with my interpretation of >> what Peirce wrote. The issues are rather subtle, and I've been busy with >> other writings. When they're published, I'll show how they explain the >> issues that Peirce was addressing. >> >> As for that off-list note, I did not respond because the note was so >> hopelessly wrong that there was no point in saying anything. >> >> As for my reasons for supporting the comments by Edwina, Auke, and >> others, the reasons are simple: they have a more open-ended attitude that >> is closer in spirit to what Peirce was writing, Even when I have some >> quibbles about what they write, they are more willing to discuss the issues >> and evaluate the alternatives. >> >> I find their manner of discussion a breath of fresh air in comparison to >> Jon's rigid box. I have often pointed out some serious misinterpretations >> that Jon made. But he never admits any alternative. >> >> 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 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 .
