Auke, if “debating morals” is what you want to do in this new thread, why
didn’t you name it that instead of “semiotics”? As for me, I’m not interested
in “debating” anything. I’m interested in engaging in a civil discourse about
human habits and how we need to change them in order to mitigate the damage we
are currently doing to life on earth: that’s what my blog and my book are about.
On the Peirce list, I’m interested in a civil dialogue about how Peirce’s
insights and ideas can contribute to that larger discourse. Frankly I don’t see
how your new thread contributes either to that or to the subject you named in
the subject line, and I think my own time would be better spent improving the
integration of genuine Peircean insights into Turning Signs, which is itself an
attempt to take physics, biology, systems theory, psychology, ecology,
hermeneutics, sociology, cognitive science, linguistics and much else into
account within a semiotically-oriented study of the living systems intervolved
on this planet. So that’s what I intend to do. Good luck with your debate about
morals.
Gary f.
} The creature that wins against its environment destroys itself. [G. Bateson] {
<https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected]
<[email protected]> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
Sent: 31-Mar-21 09:05
To: [email protected]; Peirce-L <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Semiotics, was : RE: Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and
Peircean Category Theory
Gary F,
You know very well that we are not discussing Phaneroscopy, iconoscopy and
peircean category theory. We are conversing about debating morals.
You wrote:
and you claim that the reader would “expect the error at the end” because of
the earlier contradictions.
-
Where did I claim something 'because of the earlier contradictions'? You
suggest with this passage that besides the conflict between the last sentence
and the preceding sentences, I am of the opinion that the earlier sentences are
already contradictionary.
Auke
Op 31 maart 2021 om 14:51 schreef [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> :
Auke,
AVB: I rename this thread semiotics. To be frank, I try to find out what to
focus on.
GF: OK, you don’t want to focus on Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean
Category Theory, as I did in my post. Fair enough, and I suppose your pointing
out of a self-contradiction (“conflict”) in ET’s paragraph can count as
“semiotics,” and so can your remarks about my post. But those remarks are
inaccurate, at least here:
AVB: 2. What is missing is a consideration of the quote in the context of the
paragraph itself and of the mail in its whole.
GF: The first part is not true: I did quote the whole paragraph and analyzed it
as a whole, precisely to show the context of the misquotation (i.e. of the
token of the type of phenomenon I was focussing on.) The still larger context
of “the mail in its whole” was not relevant to the phaneroscopic/iconoscopic
analysis, and I don’t think it’s fair to blame me for doing that instead of the
“semiotic” analysis that you prefer.
Your analysis of the paragraph seems to focus mainly on the expectations
created in the reader’s mind as he is reading it, and you claim that the reader
would “expect the error at the end” because of the earlier contradictions.
Maybe so, but to what end are you making that claim? It looks to me as if you
are suggesting or implying an answer to the question which, as Gary R observed,
only Edwina can answer.
As for your questions at the end,
AVB: Who is the one that tears quotes out of the context?
As Gary R pointed out, quoting Wikipedia, everybody who quotes part of a prior
text takes the quote out of its original context. But “The problem here is not
the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are),
but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases
or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to
clarify the intentions behind the selected words.”
AVB: To what end?
GF: You already know what my purpose was, or at least I’ve made it quite
explicit. (If you are still asking about my purpose, that seems to imply that
you don’t believe me, although you don’t say why.) As for your purpose in
taking quotes out of context, I hazarded a guess above, but it’s only a guess,
as you haven’t made it explicit. And as for Edwina’s purpose in taking quotes
out of context, I have not hazarded a guess, and again, only she can answer
that.
Gary f.
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
Sent: 31-Mar-21 07:45
To: Peirce-L <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Semiotics, was : RE: Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean
Category Theory
Gary F,
I rename this thread semiotics. To be frank, I try to find out what to focus
on. If I understand you well, you focus on:
And since matter-is-mind within Peircean analysis, then, this triadic process
is operative throughout the physical, chemical, biological and conceptual
realms. 'Matter is effete mind" 6.25. And "what we call matter is not
completely dead bu is merely mind hidebound with habits" 6.158. "he whole
action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe" 6.61
---
But if I look at your analysis, I would say you focus on only one sentence:
"he whole action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe" 6.61
--
I is by comparing this sentence with the source text, that you draw your
conclusions. Two remarks can be made:
1. Since the listers know, or are easily able to find the whole mail, they know
that it is Edwina about whom the unfavorable conclusions are drawn.
2. What is missing is a consideration of the quote in the context of the
paragraph itself and of the mail in its whole.
If we take the paragraph, the first thing that strikes my eye is the conflict
between the first sentence and the last. At least at one side of the pharagraph
one would expect an error. Given the greater weight of first sentences above
latter sentences in a paragraph, and looking at the repetition 'matter is
effete mind', I expect the error at the end. Add to this that there also is a
typo, and we may assume a moment of lessend attention.
That raises the questions:
Who is the one that tears quotes out of the context?
and,
To what end?
Best,
Auke van Breemen
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
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.
