List:
If I just take this exchange as an example of what I see as a
problem with the focus of this List:
BM: But I am wholly astonished by the rigorus property you are
attaching to definitions or descriptions made by Peirce. He was not
God the Father. Surely we have to refer to his rights as first
inventor but then, our ideas on what he called phaneroscopy can /
have to be freely expressed and spread.
GF: You are asserting that “what he called phaneroscopy” — the
dynamic object of that sign — is what it is independently of
anything Peirce said about it. Would you also say that about
“pragmaticism,” or “synechism”? I find this a very odd way of
using technical terms, especially those invented by an expert
lexicographer like Peirce.
What I see in the above exchange is an argument between the view
[as expressed by GF] that an idea as an 'object', in this case, from
Peirce, is meant to be reproduced in the world iconically; an Iconic
Sinsign, a 'non-evaluated and non-analyzed description of a sensate or
input data...vs the view [as expressed by BM] towards the development
of that idea as a Rhematic Indexical Legisign, an 'individual
interpretation of local stimuli as referenced to a general rule'.
Now - what is the point of the first view, other than a taxonomic
focus on terms - and what is the point of the second view - which to
me at least, seems to be to examine that 'general rule' as it
articulates itself within the individual instantiations of the Real
World'.
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
