Edwina, List: As I have already explained twice before in this thread, no one can ever be absolutely certain that a particular understanding of Peirce's writings ( *dynamical* interpretant) matches their final interpretant--the *correct *reading, how the texts *necessarily would be* understood under ideal circumstances, in the ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. However, we *can *discern whether a particular understanding of Peirce's writings (*dynamical* interpretant) is consistent with their *immediate *interpretant--the range of *valid *readings, how the texts 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.
When it comes to some of the most trenchant on-List disagreements, what Peirce wrote is unmistakably clear. A classification of the sciences that omits phaneroscopy altogether, or that subsumes it under either mathematics or semeiotic, is not *Peirce's *mature classification. A speculative grammar that defines "sign" as the triad, or that models semiosis as input-function-output, is not *Peirce's *speculative grammar. A cosmology that denies the reality of God as the non-immanent creator of the entire universe, or in which mind and matter somehow co-evolved such that neither is primordial, is not *Peirce's *cosmology. Each of these is apparently a Peirce-*inspired *analytic framework, but none can rightly be labeled as *THE* Peircean analytic framework--i.e., *Peirce's *analytic framework. How can I assert this so confidently? Because I generally agree with the following past remarks by John Sowa. JFS (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-08/msg00067.html): The only clear statements of what Peirce meant are exact quotations. JFS (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-05/msg00045.html): But nobody can claim that anything other than an exact quotation is what Peirce intended. JFS (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00146.html): For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations. In other words, any alleged description and/or application of *Peirce's *analytic framework must be explicitly supported by exact quotations from his writings. Anyone choosing to employ *different *terminology must carefully spell out how the new terms map to *his *terms. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:37 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
