Gary F,
I'll disagree with you. I think that debates about method are
important. The only 'method' I've seen that JAS outlines, is to
provide quotations from Peirce texts. But does interpretation of
these texts consist only of repeating them and declaring that 'it
means this'? Rather Saussurian. Is such a method enough to validate
that particular interpretation? As some of us have been saying, as a
method - it is weak, and requires real life pragmatics [Secondness]
examples. Therefore - methodology is important.
So- one can have one's own ideology about semiosis - and, quite
frankly, one can support this personal ideology with many quotations
from Peirce. BUT, these quotations can be a complete
misinterpretation of what Peirce was really saying, because the
quotations, lifted from the page, can take on a new meaning in this
'new page'. That is - a lot of what we see here is all about 'special
interests' .. Now - who can evaluate whether these 'interpretations'
are valid to Peirce, or valid for the personal 'special interest'
ideology? That's not a simple task.
When some of us, for example, ask repeatedly for real world examples
of the interpretations offered - and don't get them, are we supposed
to accept that the conclusions of this rather authoritarian method [I
say this, and so, it is so] - must be accepted as valid? Jon Awbrey's
recent outline of methods was, I felt, rather important and relevant
to this situation.
With regard to the debate between Robert and JAS - I don't see that
it came to a 'natural end' [whatever that means]. It ended because
the two participants have extremely different views both on Peircean
semiosis, and on the methods of arriving at those views - and could
come to no common ground. Yes, they were civil about it, and nodded
graciously and said nice things about each other - but the real issue
was: two completely different views on Peircean semiosis AND
methodology.
Edwina
On Tue 09/06/20 10:04 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Jon A.S., list,
I can’t speak for Gary the moderator or anyone else on the list,
but I think the principles you’ve outlined here are pretty much
self-evident for any serious Peirce scholarship, and I would
certainly prefer not to be subjected to further debates about them.
If a list member feels that he or she can advance the understanding
of Peirce’s thought by somehow ‘channeling’ him instead of
carefully reading and quoting what he actually wrote (and citing its
context), they are free to say so and to apply the results to
whatever special interests they have; but the rest of us are free to
ignore such posts and any threads that may result from them.
Personally I’d like to extend this a bit further and suggest that
experienced list members are obligated to ignore the kind of
“methodological criticisms” you refer to. I hope, in other words,
that list members who feel drawn into debate on such issues do their
debating offlist, as you suggest, and save the rest of us the trouble
of skimming and deleting such debates.
I suggest this because such debates are a complete waste of time,
not so much for those of us who ignore and delete them, but
especially for newer members of the list who may not immediately
recognize their futility. They deserve more substantial content on
the Peirce list, and indeed require it if they are going to learn as
much from participation onlist as you and I did in our early years
with it. Your recent exchange with Robert, for instance, did feature
some substantial content, and didn’t get drowned out with
irrelevant debates — and came to a natural end before devolving
into fruitless repetition. For the sake of those relatively new to
the list, I’d like to see more of that. And for my part, I’ll
pledge not to make any more meta-posts like this one.
Gary f.
} Entering is the source, and the source means from beginning to
end. [Dogen] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [1] }{ living the transition
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 8-Jun-20 20:51
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and
Analysis of Semeiosis)
John, List:
I will spell out my position one more time, but I continue to find
these strictly methodological criticisms tiresome, and I suspect that
many others on the List would prefer not to be subjected to further
debates about them. I respectfully request that in the future any
such exchanges be kept off-List.
JFS: But when trying to understand what Peirce wrote, it's
essential to interpret his words according to his way of thinking.
The only way to ascertain Peirce's way of thinking in the first
place is by interpreting his words.
JFS: The reason why you always agree with Jon is that you both
happen to think in the same way.
Gary R. does not always agree with me, and we do not think in
exactly the same way. What we do have in common are certain
methodological principles for interpreting Peirce or any other
author, which are very widely accepted within the entire community of
scholars.
JFS: Robert and I are not claiming that your way is a bad way.
We're just saying that it's not the way Peirce was thinking.
Therefore, it's unreliable as a method for deriving any conclusions
from his writings.
Robert can speak for himself, and no one can authoritatively declare
what is and is not "the way Peirce was thinking" except by quoting his
own words. Again, his writings constitute the only definitive
evidence available, so we must appeal to them when making our
respective cases.
JFS: I strongly agree with Robert's objections to a "literalist'
method of just quoting words.
Robert raised no particular objections, he simply made an offhand
reference to my alleged "incessant 'literalist' activism." In any
case, what alternative would somehow better support one's
interpretations of Peirce's writings than quoting his own words?
After all, someone once asserted [2] (albeit without textual
warrant) that "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to
paraphrase his thoughts," and then later claimed [3] never to have
"seen any paraphrase of Peirce's words that was clearer or more
precise than his own." If both quotes and paraphrases are
disallowed, then what else is left? No reputable scholar would
seriously advocate such an impossibly restrictive approach.
JFS: Since Jon has an engineering background, he would have had
enough training in science and mathematics that he could learn to
appreciate Peirce's way of thinking.
I have indeed learned to appreciate Peirce's way of thinking, which
is why I have spent so much time contemplating it and then writing
about it, both here and in various publications. In particular, my
series of articles on "The Logic of Ingenuity" (beginning here [4],
with links to the other three parts) is a direct application of it to
the way of thinking that we engineers routinely employ. Peirce even
did some structural calculations himself in the mid-1890s, for George
S. Morison's proposed (but never constructed) bridge over the Hudson
River (see here [5] and here [6]).
JFS: Unfortunately, Peirce's late writings present his conclusions
without going into the details of how he derived his results. Those
writings are good for learning Peirce's conclusions, but they don't
show how to draw any further inferences from them.
I strongly disagree. Since most of those late writings are in
various manuscripts and letters, including unsent drafts, they do not
merely "present his conclusions," they embody his way of thinking.
The images of his original pages are especially enlightening, showing
his self-corrections, marginal notes, and various false starts. Like
me and many others, Peirce wrote to find out what he thought, going
so far as to state that his inkstand was as essential to his thinking
as any lobe of his brain. Oops, that is a paraphrase, so here is a
quote of the relevant passage for good measure.
CSP: A psychologist cuts out a lobe of my brain (nihil animale me
alienum puto) and then, when I find I cannot express myself, he says,
"You see your faculty of language was localized in that lobe." No
doubt it was; and so, if he had filched my inkstand, I should not
have been able to continue my discussion until I had got another.
Yea, the very thoughts would not come to me. So my faculty of
discussion is equally localized in my inkstand. It is localization in
a sense in which a thing may be in two places at once. On the theory
that the distinction between psychical and physical phenomena is the
distinction between final and efficient causation, it is plain enough
that the inkstand and the brain-lobe have the same general relation to
the functions of the mind. (CP 7.366, 1902)
Studying Peirce's own words is the best--really, the only--method
for learning his way of thinking. Accordingly, quoting Peirce's own
words is the best--really, the only--method for supporting one's
interpretations of his writings.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
Links:
------
[1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/
[2] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00118.html
[3] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00301.html
[4] https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10373
[5] https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11048
[6] https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11401
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
