Re: Peirce In Many Disciplines

Re: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/9549
In: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/9420

Cathy, Martin, Steven, & All,

I think this is related to the two different ways of reading
Peirce that I've observed or participated in over the years.
Like most dualities that play out in the 3-space of signs,
it is not really possible to do one to the exclusion of
the other but I think there are definite tendencies and
readers do tend to incline toward one pole or the other
of the spectrum, though I'm sure we all pass through
various phases in the mix from time to time.

We can read Peirce's work as an exercise in literary hermeneutics
or we can read Peirce as a scientist, mathematician, and logician.
I've noticed this dimension of interpretation for a very long time,
since I first started reading Peirce and the secondary literature
in the late 1960s, but I think I noticed it most acutely recently
in our group reading of the Kaina Stoichea.

We can ask ourselves the question, "Did Peirce have a theory of signs?",
but the meaning of the question will be different, and so its answer,
depending on whether we read it more in the literary vein or more in
the scientific, mathematical, or logical vein of interpretation.

(NB.  Here, as always, I draw distinction between logician and logicist.)

Regards,

Jon

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache