Edwina, List,
Edwina, please *do* proceed with what *you* consider to be the kind of
inquiry that you consider to be most proper, or most important (or however
you conceive of it) on this list and off, your particular 'practical
application' of theory emphasis certainly being valuable and important.
Yet Peirce himself was interested in much more than 'practical
applications' of his theories, more even than pragmatism which, after all,
he sometimes characterized as but 'critical commonsense-ism'. Indeed he was
active in developing *both* the theory and practice of many sciences,
theoretical, special, and applied.
Let's look just at the *Sciences of Discovery* as he called them (and which
he also called, tellingly, *Theoretical Science*, and even *Pure
Theoretical Sciences)*, all of which he did significant work in.
So, following the order of his *Classification of Sciences* (a part of *Science
of Review*, one of his three *Grand Sciences*, along with *Science of
Discovery* and *Practical Science*) Peirce worked in these: *Pure
Mathematics*; in *Cenoscopic Science* (*scientific philosophy*), he made
contributions in *Phenomenology*, Scientific *Esthetics* and *Ethics*, and
in all three branches of *Logic as Semeiotic*.
Note that the first of these three branches is *Theoretical* (or *Semeiotic*)
*Grammar*, the second, *Critical Logic *("Logic as logic"-CSP), the third
*Theoretical* (or, *Semeiotic*) *Rhetoric*, where many Peirce scholars,
including me, place *Pragmaticism*. And, of course, Peirce also did
valuable work in *Scientific Metaphysics* to complete the *Theoretical
Sciences*.
And there can be no doubt that he also did extraordinary work in several of
the *Special Sciences*, the next branch in his Classification, and in more
than a few of the *Practical *(what we call, *Applied*) *Sciences*. Indeed,
he earned much of his living in those sciences.
But do note: he was still working on his semeiotic theory at the time of
his death.
So, to suggest that the only Peirce area of inquiry which scholars ought
pursue is that of *Pragmaticism*, or, rather, what I think you're
suggesting, such *Special Sciences* (as *Biosemiotics)*, is simply to
narrow the scope to, in my view, an absurd degree. Logicians, in
particular, should see this as absurd. This list moderator will always
argue such a narrowing of possible Peircean inquiry.
I consider your argument in the email I'm responding to (and in many
similar in the last year or so) to be disingenuous in suggesting that you
have *not* argued against conducting theoretical research in a way meant to
discourage it. But do you really want me to go back over list posts to show
your outright hostility to theorizing? I can do that, but would rather not.
So, in a word, you can certainly have your research preferences, but please
do not try to impose them on other researchers.
I implore you and every list member to simply get on with her or his work
and let others with different interests get on with theirs. That is all.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
"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 Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:06 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> Gary R - you may consider my calls for seeking to increase the depth and
> scope of analysis of Peircean semiotic theory by moving its models into
> pragmatic examination and analysis of the real world - as an act of
> 'intolerance' and a 'downright offense to free inquiry' - but - obviously,
> I disagree.
>
> My view is that to restrict Peircean analysis to theory and terminology is
> a circular agenda - for the whole point of Peircean semiosis is its
> pragmatism - its functional ability to inform us about the objective real
> world. If we reject such agendas - then - how can we know that our
> interpretations of Peirce, ie, our theorizing and our models, - are
> actually pragmatically functional if we don't move them into that objective
> world - and test them???
>
> I certainly don't 'block the way of inquiry'. How do I do this? Surely you
> aren't suggesting that my calls-for-pragmatism, my calls to examine how
> these models and hypotheses actually function to explain the real world -
> have any power to stop someone's theorizing, to 'block the way of
> inquiry'?! Does anyone actually feel intimidated by my requests? They might
> not like them - but - I can say the same thing about the primary focus of
> this list - which seems to be on pure theory. I don't like this focus -
> since I feel there is no way to validate a semiosic theory other than by
> testing it within the real objective world - but- I'm certainly not
> 'intimidated' by this list's focus on pure theory. And I don't feel that
> this focus 'blocks the way of inquiry' - I feel that it rejects pragmatics.
> That's all.
>
> Hardly worth chastising me for being 'intolerant' and 'blocking the way of
> inquiry'. Or a 'downright offense to free inquiry'!
>
> Again - Peirce was about more than theory; he was a pragmatist - and that
> means examining the real world via his semiosis.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue 12/05/20 7:29 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> List,
>
> It would once again appear that Edwina and John expect everyone to have
> always and only the same interests as they do. Edwina, for
> example, characterizes anything else, notably, theorizing, as "an
> irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who "prefer the isolation
> and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room'. . . far, far, far from
> the real empirical objective world." Well, that's her opinion. I, for one,
> do not share it.
>
> As I have argued in the past, those of us who have other interests and
> points of view find this intolerance a downright offense to free inquiry. I
> consider the apparent conviction that, for example, all the relevant
> theories in Peirce's semeiotic are settled and that only practical
> applications are worthy of further investigation, narrow-minded and
> misguided in the extreme. As I recently remarked, it takes but a glance at
> the last several years of journal issues of Transactions of the Charles
> S. Peirce Society to see that semeiotic theory is not only alive and
> well, but is growing, evolving. There is, in the view of many, many Peirce
> scholars, much more theoretical work to be done.
>
> As I have said before and even all too recently, as list moderator I see
> this continued intolerance for the views of others on this list as
> amounting to little more than an attempt at seeking "to block the way of
> inquiry." In his comments on the 'General Character of the Forum', Joseph
> Ransdell, the founder of this forum, referred to the opposite of this
> narrow-mindedness as "generosity of attitude."
> https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#forum-character
>
> I will remind Peirce-L members that I serve as moderator of this list
> solely at the pleasure of The Peirce Group which has always given me its
> full support for my moderation principles and practices. Is there really
> anyone in this forum who is prepared to argue again this principle of a
> "generosity of attitude" as just set forth? If so, I would be eager to read
> that argument.
>
> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
>
> "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
