Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)
Helmut - Personally I think that a lot of the confusion to which you allude. "two concepts of sign-as-representation, which is "not a real thing" versus sign-as-event, which would be a real thing and include the real things utterer and interpreter. " ...is due to the lack of clarity in the use of the term 'sign' on this list. That is - the term of 'sign' can be used to refer just to the mediative node in the triadic [or hexadic] semiosic process. To be clear about this, I refer to that mediative node as the Representamen. But the term 'sign' is also used to refer to the agential power, so to speak. of the semiosic process and the focus is on the 'sign' as having this power. This is what seems to be the most common use on this list. And there's a third use, which I use, which refers to the triad or hexad in full, as the Sign, and views this full process as a morphological instance of semiosis. The reason I do this, is because I consider that the triad/hexad is irreducible, and to refer only to the sign alone [that mediative node] denies this irreducible reality. That mediative node never, ever, exists 'as such'; it is not 'on its own', so to speak. Think of semiosis not as a mechanical action but as a process of the actual generation of information, taking raw data from objective reality as input and, using a developed knowledge base, transforming that raw data into a morphological actuality as a result. This result could be a molecule, a cell, an insect, the meaning of strange sounds, an understanding of a map. To achieve this result - there are three-six 'nodes' or sites for the transmission/transformation of data. You know them already: The DO, IO, R, II, DI, FI Not all are involved [usually the FI is not part of the normal experience]… The sign-as-representation, if I understand you correctly, would be the mediative node - but, which is often defined as having agential power to represent-the-input-data. The sign-as-event, again, if I understand you correctly, would be the full hexadic process. And I'm sure that there are plenty of people on this list who disagree with me - but- that's not a problem. Edwina On Tue 09/06/20 12:34 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Gary F., Edwina, List, Isn´t it so, that there are topics, about which Peirce did not write so much, but other writers did? For example, the online "Commens Dictionary" is named after the commens, which was a major topic of the last discussions, but if you look it up in the dictionary, there is only one entry about it (the "commens"), and the three interpretants effectual, intentional, communicational, that accord to the three interpreters utterer, interpreter, and both combined. Peirce did not write much about interpreters. So I think it is useful to compare him with e.g. Uexküll and systems theoreticians. For the advanced I think it also is good to compare Peirce´s mathematics and relation logic with other mathematics. So I think, it is not a waste of time for new list members to not only read Peirce, but- not "advance" and "channel", but compare his thoughts with the thoughts of others. Because new list members may know other philosophers from school or from voluntary reading, and not yet Peirce so well.I still am struggeling with the two concepts of sign-as-representation, which is "not a real thing" versus sign-as-event, which would be a real thing and include the real things utterer and interpreter. I am close to asking myself, is the more or less complete ignorance of the latter concept not a hidden form of dualism?? Best, Helmut 09. Juni 2020 um 16:57 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Gary F, I'll disagree with you. I think that debates about method are important. The only 'method' I've seen that JAS outlines, is to provide quotations from Peirce texts. But does interpretation of these texts consist only of repeating them and declaring that 'it means this'? Rather Saussurian. Is such a method enough to validate that particular interpretation? As some of us have been saying, as a method - it is weak, and requires real life pragmatics [Secondness] examples. Therefore - methodology is important. So- one can have one's own ideology about semiosis - and, quite frankly, one can support this personal ideology with many quotations from Peirce. BUT, these quotations can be a complete misinterpretation of what Peirce was really saying, because the quotations, lifted from the page, can take on a new meaning in this 'new page'. That is - a lot of what we see here is all about 'special interests' .. Now - who can evaluate whether these 'interpretations' are valid to Peirce, or valid for the personal 'special interest' ideology? That's not a simple task. When some of us, for example, ask repeatedly for real world examples of the interpretations offered - and don't get the
Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)
Gary F., Edwina, List, Isn´t it so, that there are topics, about which Peirce did not write so much, but other writers did? For example, the online "Commens Dictionary" is named after the commens, which was a major topic of the last discussions, but if you look it up in the dictionary, there is only one entry about it (the "commens"), and the three interpretants effectual, intentional, communicational, that accord to the three interpreters utterer, interpreter, and both combined. Peirce did not write much about interpreters. So I think it is useful to compare him with e.g. Uexküll and systems theoreticians. For the advanced I think it also is good to compare Peirce´s mathematics and relation logic with other mathematics. So I think, it is not a waste of time for new list members to not only read Peirce, but- not "advance" and "channel", but compare his thoughts with the thoughts of others. Because new list members may know other philosophers from school or from voluntary reading, and not yet Peirce so well. I still am struggeling with the two concepts of sign-as-representation, which is "not a real thing" versus sign-as-event, which would be a real thing and include the real things utterer and interpreter. I am close to asking myself, is the more or less complete ignorance of the latter concept not a hidden form of dualism?? Best, Helmut 09. Juni 2020 um 16:57 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Gary F, I'll disagree with you. I think that debates about method are important. The only 'method' I've seen that JAS outlines, is to provide quotations from Peirce texts. But does interpretation of these texts consist only of repeating them and declaring that 'it means this'? Rather Saussurian. Is such a method enough to validate that particular interpretation? As some of us have been saying, as a method - it is weak, and requires real life pragmatics [Secondness] examples. Therefore - methodology is important. So- one can have one's own ideology about semiosis - and, quite frankly, one can support this personal ideology with many quotations from Peirce. BUT, these quotations can be a complete misinterpretation of what Peirce was really saying, because the quotations, lifted from the page, can take on a new meaning in this 'new page'. That is - a lot of what we see here is all about 'special interests' .. Now - who can evaluate whether these 'interpretations' are valid to Peirce, or valid for the personal 'special interest' ideology? That's not a simple task. When some of us, for example, ask repeatedly for real world examples of the interpretations offered - and don't get them, are we supposed to accept that the conclusions of this rather authoritarian method [I say this, and so, it is so] - must be accepted as valid? Jon Awbrey's recent outline of methods was, I felt, rather important and relevant to this situation. With regard to the debate between Robert and JAS - I don't see that it came to a 'natural end' [whatever that means]. It ended because the two participants have extremely different views both on Peircean semiosis, and on the methods of arriving at those views - and could come to no common ground. Yes, they were civil about it, and nodded graciously and said nice things about each other - but the real issue was: two completely different views on Peircean semiosis AND methodology. Edwina On Tue 09/06/20 10:04 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent: Jon A.S., list, I can’t speak for Gary the moderator or anyone else on the list, but I think the principles you’ve outlined here are pretty much self-evident for any serious Peirce scholarship, and I would certainly prefer not to be subjected to further debates about them. If a list member feels that he or she can advance the understanding of Peirce’s thought by somehow ‘channeling’ him instead of carefully reading and quoting what he actually wrote (and citing its context), they are free to say so and to apply the results to whatever special interests they have; but the rest of us are free to ignore such posts and any threads that may result from them. Personally I’d like to extend this a bit further and suggest that experienced list members are obligated to ignore the kind of “methodological criticisms” you refer to. I hope, in other words, that list members who feel drawn into debate on such issues do their debating offlist, as you suggest, and save the rest of us the trouble of skimming and deleting such debates. I suggest this because such debates are a complete waste of time, not so much for those of us who ignore and delete them, but especially for newer members of the list who may not immediately recognize their futility. They deserve more substantial content on the Peirce list, and indeed require it if they are going to learn as much from participation onlist as you and I did in our early years with it. Your recent exchange with Robert, for instance, did feature some substantial content, and didn’t get drowned
