BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
But how can YOU be sure that YOUR reading of Peirce is correct?
Never mind the Final Interpretant, which isn't the issue here. I'm
talking about the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants - and how can
you be sure that YOUR interpretations are correct? You and I still
argue about quite a few terms and outlines within Peirce. You
obviously think you are correct and I think I am correct. So- how can
you say, on your own, unilaterally, that your interpretation 'matches
what he wrote'?
Edwina
On Mon 18/10/21 10:31 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
As I already explained below, I can never be absolutely certain that
my (or anyone else's) understanding of Peirce's writings matches their
final interpretant, but I can ascertain when someone else's expressed
understanding of them is inconsistent with their immediate
interpretant, and is thus objectively invalid. That person's analytic
framework might very well turn out to be quite fruitful when "used to
explain the actual world," but it is not Peirce's analytic framework
unless it matches the one that he describes in his texts.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:03 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
I'd disagree; you do claim to be defining The Peircean analytic
framework. Otherwise, how could you justify your comments criticizing
others? You don't apply it, admittedly, for you have openly said that
you are not interested in application examples.
But, do you really expect someone who is applying aspects of the
Peircean framework - to use ALL of Peirce's work? After all, the
point of the theoretical work of, eg, Aristotle, Plato, Kant..and
Einstein, Bohr, Darwin and etc, is not endless outlines of what their
whole work 'means' ..as outlined in another textual outline but how
their thoughts and analytic framework function in the actual world!!
And as for 'what exactly are the three categories' - well, the
meaning of them can only emerge in how they are used to explain the
actual world. Same with everything else. the point is - not to write
up another text [Peirce being 'translated' into another text] but in
showing how Peirce's analytic framework moves out of and off the page
and is used to explain actuality.
Edwina
On Mon 18/10/21 12:00 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
I am not the one claiming to be defining and applying "THE Peircean
analytic framework." As spelled out in his texts, there is much more
to it than "using the three categories in both their genuine and
degenerate modes" and/or "using the triadic semiosic process to show
both necessary and adaptive interactions." What exactly are "the
three categories"? What exactly are "their genuine and degenerate
modes"? What exactly is "the triadic semiosic process"? How exactly
is it supposedly being manifested in the specific phenomenon that is
under examination? As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 9:00 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
Then the question I ask is - what is the definition of THE Peircean
analytic framework?
That is, what if someone is examining the semiosic processes of a
wetlands or a meadow, and examining the interactions among all the
myriad species in these areas - using the three categories in both
their genuine and degenerate modes, using the triadic semiosic
process to show both necessary and adaptive interactions.....would
you say that this is only a 'Peircean-inspired-analytic
framework.....because Peirce himself never carried out such a use of
his framework?
Edwina
On Sun 17/10/21 7:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:24 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
