Gary F. You wrote a curious response, stating that I appropriate a technical term to evoke a broader concept of commons.
For the record: I did introduce the history of the term culture in the social sciences in order to show that in his days it was wanting (Bildung in Germany and civil society in the UK differ significantly in meaning). This in order to make guess at why at one time Peirce did hold an opinion that later was dismissed. And, between the lines to suggest that Peirce's devotion to the project of science hindered him in his development of semiotics for enterprises not aiming at the truth in the long run. Your suggestion to take recourse to Hess and Ostrom (2007) is even more curious. I looked it up: http://www.wtf.tw/ref/hess_ostrom_2007.pdf I frankly do not see how this fits in with my argument. But worse, even if I did have the inclination you attribute to me, I don't see how this could further that enterprise. On the other hand, I do see how Peirce's semiotics, offers possibilities to deal with cultural differences, conflicts and theories about the relation between individuals and culture. In combination with his process description as summarized in Hulswitt, and bringing De Tienne's suggestion (i.e. a need for a sheet for phaneroscopy in order to get a diagrammatical hold on the subject that equals EG) to semiotics by introducing the sheet of semiosis and making a process description in semiotic terms. Best, Auke > Op 11 juni 2020 om 14:54 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca: > > > 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. > > … > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
