Jon Alan, I agree... It is sometimes the price to pay to keep the coherence of our formal constructions and personally I assume them totally ... and I think that you will notice if I deviate too much from it; and I will take it into account ... that's how I understand the mind of the laboratory...
Thanks, Robert Le sam. 13 juin 2020 à 15:46, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Robert, List: > > I do not rule out anything except misrepresenting Peirce's own views as > expressed in his actual writings. All I ask is that we strive to be honest > about how our terminologies, conceptual frameworks, and analyses of the > universe deviate from his. > > Thanks, > > Jon S. > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:11 AM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon, List >> >> Jon I suppose that in this search for coherence in "certain aspects of >> Peirce's thought" you do not rule out using mathematical objects which are >> appeared in ulterior development of this discipline that was not at his >> disposal more than 100 years ago? Otherwise, wouldn't the pure approach >> literalist be a true corset for research completely contrary to the >> foundations of his thought ? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Robert >> >> Le sam. 13 juin 2020 à 03:15, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> a écrit : >> >>> Gary F., List: >>> >>> Thanks for your comments. I am indeed eager to recognize and explore >>> the *evolution *of Peirce's thought over the course of his life as >>> reflected in his manuscripts, which is why I always provide the year of >>> publication or composition whenever I cite or quote him, and I encourage >>> others to do likewise. >>> >>> The complete lack of any further progress on the Chronological Edition >>> over the last decade-plus (and counting) has been very frustrating to me. >>> At the same time, it has forced me to examine and transcribe the available >>> images of various post-1892 manuscripts myself, which I believe has been >>> quite valuable in a way that simply reading them as published texts cannot >>> duplicate. As you rightly said, "It’s as close as we can get to the >>> experience of *following *Peirce’s arguments by *thinking along with >>> their process*." Accordingly, it will forever baffle me that there are >>> those who persistently dismiss the value of supporting our interpretations >>> of his writings by extensively quoting his own words. This is not some >>> "radical" type of "literalism," but rather a common practice in the >>> mainstream of philosophical scholarship. >>> >>> As for "real-world (biological/psychological/experiential) applications >>> of Peircean semiotic/pragmaticism," it is not that I have no interest in >>> them, just that I am not as adept at discussing them. Where I think we may >>> agree is that we are not especially interested in real-world applications >>> of ideas that others *claim* to be Peircean semeiotic/pragmaticism, but >>> that clearly *deviate* in significant ways from what he actually wrote, >>> both terminologically and conceptually. Again, it may very well be the >>> case that alternative vocabularies are more familiar to most practitioners >>> today, or that alternative theories match up better with reality; but their >>> proponents should still acknowledge that those words and ideas are >>> *different >>> *from what we find in Peirce's writings. I know that you and I both >>> try to do so on such occasions. >>> >>> Finally, I am apparently obliged to say for the umpteenth time that I >>> have no plan to attempt a coherent synthesis of Peirce's *entire *system >>> of thought, or even his later writings. Instead, I will continue to do >>> what I have always done, and what much of the relevant secondary literature >>> has routinely done--attempt a coherent synthesis of certain *aspects *of >>> his thought, grounded carefully in his entire corpus. I will always >>> appreciate how the List has served as a sounding board for presenting, >>> correcting, and refining my thinking on such matters. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:13 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Jon A.S. (and list), >>>> >>>> That is a very interesting discovery, and I look forward to your >>>> complete transcription of R 787. It occurs to me that much of your recent >>>> contribution to the list and to Peircean scholarship has been to restore >>>> the integrity of Peirce’s manuscripts, which (as the late John Deely >>>> observed) were torn apart by the editors of the *Collected Papers* and >>>> rearranged thematically. Maybe that was their only choice for getting the >>>> Peirce papers published at all, given the enormity of his *Nachlass*, >>>> but the effect on scholars was to make it difficult to follow the >>>> *development* of Peirce’s ideas. >>>> >>>> The chronological order of Peirce’s thought has been partially restored >>>> by the Peirce Edition Project, but except for the selections included in >>>> EP2, the project has been stalled for ten years at 1892. I’ve tried to >>>> contribute to the restoration by using the manuscript images put online by >>>> Jeff Downard and the SPIN project to produce an online edition of the >>>> Lowell Lectures of 1903: http://www.gnusystems.ca/Lowells.htm . (The >>>> complete Lowell Lectures have since then been published ( >>>> https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/552477 ), but unfortunately I >>>> can’t afford that edition.) Anyway, your work along these lines has been >>>> more thorough, meticulous and diligent than mine, as exemplified by your >>>> contributions to peirce-l in recent years. >>>> >>>> You and I have our differences, as we’ve discussed onlist over the >>>> years, but we share the experience of many hours studying and transcribing >>>> the online images of Peirce’s post-1892 manuscripts. This has given us a >>>> sense of the *continuity* of Peirce’s thought process — his way of >>>> drafting and redrafting his exposition of semiotic/logic, frequently >>>> approaching certain key concepts by considering them from different angles >>>> and in different contexts. Reading whole manuscripts instead of scattered >>>> fragments of Peirce, and reading them in the context of their chronological >>>> order, is an experience that is not available to those who rely mainly on >>>> the CP edition of his works. It’s as close as we can get to the experience >>>> of *following* Peirce’s arguments by *thinking along with their >>>> process*. >>>> >>>> One thing I’ve derived from this experience is a deeper sense of the >>>> continuity between the processes of semiosis and those of life itself >>>> (including the *experience* of living). That connection is the main >>>> subject of my book *Turning Signs* ( >>>> http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/TWindex.htm ), and the central focus of >>>> the book is the *recursive* and *nonlinear* nature of those processes. >>>> Peirce did not use those terms, which I’ve drawn from more recent >>>> developments in science, but I’ve tried to show that he anticipated those >>>> developments, implicitly if not explicitly. I’ve occasionally tried to >>>> share this application of Peircean thought on peirce-l — the post you quote >>>> below was one attempt, drawn from my book — but have pretty much given up >>>> on that, as there doesn’t seem to be much interest here in such real-world >>>> (biological/psychological/experiential) applications of Peircean >>>> semiotic/pragmaticism. I don’t think you are much interested in that >>>> yourself. >>>> >>>> Frankly, the only reason I’m still subscribed to the list is that >>>> contributions like yours sometimes cause me to rethink (and sometimes >>>> revise) my use of Peircean concepts in *Turning Signs*. I’m still >>>> doing that because it has an effect on the way I deal with living in the >>>> Anthropocene, this moment in which life on planet Earth is going through a >>>> relatively sudden and drastic transformation — which is the main focus of >>>> my blog http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ . That shift of interest is my excuse >>>> for ignoring most of the discussion here on peirce-l. “Communicating an >>>> idea” sounds like a promising thread, though, and I look forward to seeing >>>> how it develops. >>>> >>>> Gary f >>>> >>> -- >> 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.
