BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, Gary, list
I think that's an important point: John wrote:
"When we're writing textual criticism of Peirce's writings, it's
essential to preserve the exact terms that occur in each quoted
passage. But when we're writing for a 21st. audience, we're
obligated to consider what is "prevailing with most of the
co-workers"."
I agree - when one is critiquing the actual Peircean tests - yes,
one uses the exact terms. But- we still have to consider that we
might interpret these terms differently - and it is extremely
difficult to come to a final conclusion about which meaning is
'right'.
But - it's not merely when we are writing for a 21st audience that
we have to consider what is 'prevailing with most of the co-workers'.
I think we have to expand the numbers and types of who we admit to the
group of 'co-workers'. If we reject the use of the Peircean analytic
framework in disciplines other than philosophy, /speculative grammar,
..such as physics, biology, artificial intelligence, economics and
societal research - and reject the terms that prevail in those
disciplines [such as input, output, node, attractor, entropy,
dissipative etc]..because Peirce-did-not-use-them...then, I think we
are rejecting all the years and effort that he put into his work. I
think that Peirce did not spend all his life in developing and
working on such a massive project - if he intended it to be confined
to what is essentially literary criticism.
Edwina
On Sun 03/05/20 11:35 AM , "John F. Sowa" s...@bestweb.net sent:
Gary R and Jon AS,
Peirce's ethics of terminology is important. But he made an
important distinction: If an author's term is adopted and used by
other authors, then the person who coined that term has an obligation
to continue using it in the same sense in which it is being used. But
if nobody else is using the term, the original author is free to
revise or replace it.
In the half century of his writings, the meanings of many of his
terms evolved, and he sometimes changed his terminology without
stating exactly how the new terms were related to the old ones.
Since most of his MSS were not intended for publication, he was under
no obligation to preserve the terms.
CSP as quoted by JAS: "a general agreement concerning the use of
terms and of notations,--not too rigid, yet prevailing with most of
the co-workers in regard to most of the symbols, to such a degree
that there shall be some small number of different systems of
expression that have to be mastered" (CP 2.220, EP 2:263).
GR> I couldn't agree more; it is my view as well.
Yes, I would also agree. But note the qualifications: (1)
"prevailing with most of the co-workers", and (2) "there shall be
some small number of different systems of expression that have to be
mastered".
After 1903, when it became obvious that Russell's terminology for
logic was becoming more widely used, he avoided some of the terms in
his earlier publications, and he adopted some of the terms that were
becoming more widely used.
When we're writing textual criticism of Peirce's writings, it's
essential to preserve the exact terms that occur in each quoted
passage. But when we're writing for a 21st. audience, we're
obligated to consider what is "prevailing with most of the
co-workers".
But there is much more to say about these issues.
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 .
