Jon, List, I am post-Peircean myself, and so is my book. I find it hard to understand why anyone takes that adjective as an insult, whether to themselves or to their theories, unless they are looking for something to take as an insult and an excuse to vent their animosity. My original point was that if we are trying to explain how Peirce came up with his categories, it is simply anachronistic to claim that he derived them from a mathematical model which was invented after his death. Peirce gives several accounts of how he actually arrived at the categories — I included them in my Transactions paper that was published in the issue honoring Joe Ransdell — and I think the simplest option is to take his word for it. As for “ante-Peircean”, that would have to refer to the theories of Kant, Aristotle, …
I must admit that I triggered Robert Marty’s animosity by pooh-pooing his conspiracy theory “that there has been a strong movement in the Peircean community for quite a long time in favor of an extreme minimization of mathematics or even its exclusion” (as he stated it in a Sept. 20 post). I should have simply ignored it from the start, as I did afterwards, even after some of the loudest voices on peirce-l bought into it, or at least adopted Robert’s uncritical animosity to De Tienne. As it turned out, it was Robert who had the “advantage,” and apparently still does with his followers. But I must take some of the blame for the derailing of the slow read, and I apologize to the list for that. Also for not saying anything substantive about the subject line in this post. Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: 17-Oct-21 19:48 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct, intuition and semiosis Edwina, List: ET: I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not describe the person of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was referring to Marty's thoughts and analysis. Like I already said, I personally find such labels counterproductive and try to avoid them since they tend to distract participants from the substance of the discussion. ET: And that's one of the problems of this list - this definition of the thoughts of someone who is using the analytic framework of Peirce as somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate' with claims that Peirce 'didn't use those words' etc. It is not a matter of whether a given analytic framework is "somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate,'" but whether it is truly Peirce's analytic framework. Terminology is important, but the issue is really whether concepts are being deployed in way that is congruent with how Peirce himself defines and uses them. If not, it might very well be a Peircean analytic framework, or at least a Peirce-inspired analytic framework, but it is not the Peircean analytic framework. ET: I'm claiming such a final step is impossible because semiosis has no final point. Yes and no. According to Peirce, every text is a sign. Consequently, every text has a final interpretant--how it necessarily would be understood under ideal circumstances. Every text also has an immediate interpretant--how it possibly could be understood in accordance with the definitions of the words that comprise it, along with their arrangement in accordance with the syntax and other rules of grammar for the system of signs in which it is expressed. The result of any individual reading of a text is a dynamical interpretant--how it actually is understood on that particular occasion, which for any sincere inquirer is an abductive/retroductive hypothesis about the final interpretant as the proper aim of interpretation. In order to be a valid understanding of the text, this dynamical interpretant must be consistent with the immediate interpretant; and in order to be an accurate understanding of the text, it must conform to the final interpretant. Of course, all dynamical interpretants are fallible, so we can never be absolutely certain that our understanding matches the final interpretant. Nevertheless, we can ascertain when a particular understanding is inconsistent with the immediate interpretant, and is thus objectively invalid; and in such cases, we can also say with confidence that such an understanding does not conform to the final interpretant, and is thus objectively inaccurate--it is a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation. Surely we agree that such misunderstanding and misinterpretation are possible--in fact, all too common in human discourse. Peirce's semeiotic provides this plausible explanation for those phenomena. While it is true that "semiosis has no final point" in the sense of a last actual sign, it does have a "final point" in the sense of a telos or ideal aim as I have described here. Otherwise, why bother trying to communicate at all? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:24 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: JAS, list I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not describe the person of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was referring to Marty's thoughts and analysis. After all - if we were to actually call a person a 'post-Peircean' - what exactly would we be saying?? That he lives after 1914? The fact is - that the thoughts and analysis were called 'post-Peircean'. And that's one of the problems of this list - this definition of the thoughts of someone who is using the analytic framework of Peirce as somehow 'impure' or 'degenerate' with claims that Peirce 'didn't use those words' etc. After all - what does 'post-Peircean' actually mean? Does it mean an incorrect reading of the text? I've repeatedly said that we have to be VERY careful of our readings of texts - because ALL readings are not dyadic mirrors of the text or author's mind. Instead - they are our own interpretations - and we surely are aware of how varied such readings of the SAME texts can be. We cannot yet, if ever declare that one particular interpretation is The Final and Correct One. Therefore - I would also be against your suggestion that we should not move into applying Peirce's analytic framework to other fields - before we have declared what his work 'actually is'. I'm claiming such a final step is impossible because semiosis has no final point. 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.
