Edwina, List: ET: I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are more valid and accurate and truthful than others.
Thanks for acknowledging this. As an example, in my view it is an invalid and inaccurate interpretation of Peirce to use "Sign" for "the triad" and "representamen" for its "median node," rather than treating these terms as synonyms for the first correlate of the genuine triadic relation of representing or mediating. The only alternative consistent with his writings is to use "sign" for "a Representamen of which some Interpretant is a cognition of a mind" (CP 2.242, EP 2:291, 1903)--i.e., "a Representamen with a mental interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903)--but he ultimately decided that "there was no need of this horrid long word" because "sign" is "a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905). ET: Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? Not by itself, but it is certainly an important type of evidence for supporting or refuting the plausibility of a particular interpretation. As I recently stated <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00016.html>, "'Constant references to the text' are a valid inductive method for testing hypotheses *about *the text itself, as well as hypotheses about the views of the author as *expressed *in the text." For the example above, I provide three quotes that demonstrate how using "Sign" for "the triad" and "representamen" for its "median node" is inconsistent with Peirce's careful definitions of both "sign" and "representamen." Again <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00127.html>, I do not consider this to be merely a terminological disagreement, I believe that it has important conceptual ramifications. ET: In my case, for example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I have never said that ... I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! Where has anyone done this? Specific examples, please. On the contrary, with his characteristic generosity of attitude, Gary R. stated <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00119.html>, "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." On the other hand, those of us who tend to focus more on theory have very recently had such efforts summarily dismissed <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00110.html> as "an irrelevant exercise" and our motives impugned <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00112.html> as "prefer[ring] the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar room'." As Gary R. concluded <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00119.html>, "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." ET: Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative grammar! Where has anyone said this? Specific examples, please. On the contrary, Gary R. simply observed <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00119.html> that pragmatism *per se*--as "merely a method of ascertaining the meanings of hard words and of abstract concepts" (CP 5.464, EP 2:400, 1907)--falls under the third branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic, which is speculative rhetoric or methodeutic. Consequently, *in itself* pragmatism is primarily a matter of theory, but Peirce himself immediately adds, "As to the ulterior and indirect effects of practicing the pragmatistic method, that is quite another affair" (ibid). The same is true of speculative grammar and all the other branches of philosophy. ET: What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as isolate from the real world - is not met with a switch of my frankly valid comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To Theory. This goes both ways. What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere, where a focus on theory, such as mine, is not met with the defensive tactic of "Get Out of the Seminar Room" or "Stop Paraphrasing Peirce." ET: So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes, charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation. Indeed, as long as that goes for *all *of us. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 8:53 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this list, > there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere. > > That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true > interpretations of Peirce - and invalid/incorrect/untrue ones. But is this > necessarily the problem?? > > I don't think that a resolution to this view would be one that > promotes the relativism of 'diversity' - where 'all views are acceptable. I > think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both valid and > necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are more valid and > accurate and truthful than others. So - Wimbledon does exist! > > I think the problems on the list aren't a drive to 'the truth' > or even diversity of views - for - really, there is a strong rejection of > diversity not simply in interpretations but above all in focus...It would > be nice for more diversity - not in views but in focus - ie, moving Peirce > into examining the real world in areas such as AI, physics, biology - but > that's not what I see as the problem. > > I think a key problem is 'method' of argumentation. If we take as 'given' > that the agenda/focus is to show an accurate analysis of Peirce - then, how > does one's Argument develop this? > > Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of Peirce by a > massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? That - after all, is one > method [aka, the Squid Method]. It certainly exhausts the reader into > silence but - is it in itself proof? It certainly seems reasonable; after > all - quotations-are-quotations, so to speak. But- is this an actual > argument and does this method include understanding? > > Another method is what I might call The SideStep - where someone's post is > rebutted with 'Peirce never used that word'- and thus, the whole argument > is dismissed as invalid...when the word [used in its natural sense] is > merely a synonym for the Peircean argument. Other methods include of > course, Selectivity, where the other person's argument is dismissed by > selecting one small part of it as 'problematic' and thus, the whole > argument is thrown out. And so on... These are hardly methods unique to > this list but are found wherever mankind gets together to argue and debate. > We aren't pure and exempt. > > Interestingly enough, on a list devoted to semiosis, ie, information and > cognition - the misunderstandings are huge. In my case, for example - I am > set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I have never said that. My view is that > theories are vital [as 3ns] but are empty unless expressed within the > actualities of the real world of 2ns. That is - theories must be examined > as to whether they actually, truthfully, represent and inform us about the > real world. Theories can't survive on logic alone. But - despite my > repeated assertions of this view - I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! > That's a neat defensive tactic, using Tenacity, to not deal with my > concern! > > Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his > pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative > grammar! > > I certainly don't want a 'charitable interpretation' of my position - > leading to the misinterpretation on this list that I am anti-theorist. Nor > do I want relativism where 'anything goes' and we assume we are all really > OK guys. > > What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a critique, > such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as isolate from the > real world - is not met with a switch of my frankly valid comment...into > the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To Theory. That doesn't solve the > issue. It just kicks the can out the door, so to speak. But it's still > there..albeit rusty and distant. > > So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes, charity; > but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation. > > 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 .
