I agree with you. The stakes seem minor to me; In fact, I subtitled my book
"L'Algébre des Signes" with "Scientific Essay according to Charles Sanders
Peirce" and I made it clear in my introduction that given the state in
which Peirce's work is presented ("The Peircian Continent" very well
described by Jean-Marie Chevallier) it was an illusion of achieving a
perfect harmony with all his writings. By gathering the thesaurus of 76
definitions of the sign my conviction was definitively established.
However, I have to justify the "according to Charles Sanders Peirce."
That's why at every moment and whenever it is possible I show that what I
assert is what Peirce said. Hence an important selection of quotes to
support my posture. And you understandt that I choose texts rather
mathematics and more precisely algebraics (CP 2.279) that others avoid
carefully, hence a false image of the works of Peirce (what John Sowa
rightly proclaims).
But Peirce taught us that" The only way of directly communicating an idea
is by means of an icon; and every indirect method of communicating an idea
must depend for its establishment upon the use of an icon. " (C.P. 2.278)
what , in addition, is a necessity that we can reads in the lattice.
I have an icon-metaphor that allows to understand at a glance the posture I
have just described:
[image: Une image contenant carte, texte Description générée
automatiquement]
The hypoicône (CP 2.227) define the representation of my personal approach
in the "Peircian continent" by a parallelism in the creation of a straight
line of a linear regression, a basic technique of statistics that was
learned in the first of many scientific courses. In this image the dots are
accumulations of Peirce's texts relating to the semiotics themes and the
straight line is the path I strive to trace. Initially we have only points
defined by their coordinates. Then we asks the problem: is there a
straight line that passes close to all these points? The aim is to test
whether the observed "vague" variations, given the inevitable errors on the
measurements, would be roughly represented by a straight line. The equation
of this straight line would be then the simple model of proportionality
between the two measured variables. It is obtained by imposing that the sum
of the squares of the distances of the points to the right that one seeks
must be as small as possible.
I constantly have this image in mind ...
Best regards,
[image: moindres carrés.jpg]
Le jeu. 11 juin 2020 à 14:54, <g...@gnusystems.ca> a écrit :
> Robert and Auke,
>
> I don’t think anyone questions the reality of a pool of information,
> published or not, which is not the “private property” of individual owners
> but is (or should be) a resource available to all members of a culture. If
> we want to discuss its role in cultural semiosis, why not use an
> established term such as “knowledge commons”? (See for instance Hess and
> Ostrom (2007), *Understanding Knowledge as a Commons*.) Peirce had to
> define his peculiar term *commens* precisely because it was (and is) *not*
> in common use. Appropriating Peirce’s technical term to evoke the broader
> concept of the *commons* invites confusion by reading into Peirce a
> conception that is only vaguely related to the context of his argument.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl>
> *Sent:* 11-Jun-20 03:09
> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was
> Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)
>
>
>
> Jon Alen,
>
>
>
> That is an opinion, and even if valid, it does not change the fact that
> Peirce invented and defined "the commens." I find it misleading to use his
> peculiar term to mean something else.
>
>
>
> Isn't our duscussion about the meaning of a particular term, i.e. commens?
> And, my contribution, about the need to look at the wider context in order
> to grasp the direction of a thought?
>
> At that point, I agree that a case can sometimes be made for either side;
> but my default assumption is that his later writings reflect his *more
> considered* views, and hence should be given *slightly *more weight
> accordingl
>
> Fine that you made clear that it is just your default assumption and not
> the nature of the case.
>
> …
>
--
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fran%C3%A7ois_Raymond_Marty
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fran%C3%A7ois_Raymond_Marty?fbclid=IwAR0N4S-t_avO38YlBYcj_-a2YYcsNvl6joIhTkajX0lMQhV8CXRQjQeXXxQ>
semiotiquedure.online ; semioticadura.online ; hardsemiotics.online
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
