Approaching Peirce

I gradually grow accustomed to the distinct possibility that there will always be different readings, and even divergent interpretations of Peirce’s writings. Some of that appears to be a two- or three-cultures issue — the readings that befit aesthetic, cultural, and literary aims often part ways with the readings that work best for logical, mathematical, and scientific ends. Partly this is due to the fact that applications to the humanities are soon over-whelmed with the vastly greater complexities of their theatres of operation, and so must be satisfied with very impressionistic and highly sketchy surveys of their realms.

It hasn’t always been this way with me, but most of the time these days I approach Peirce’s work from the standpoint of a practical mathematician focused on applications to empirical sciences, as luck would determine it, to the Odyssean no man’s land between qualitative and quantitative methods. That is far from how I started out, and there were many crises of mind and mood occasioned by the transits of my transdisciplinarity, but that is how it came to be at the present moment.

At any rate, what I find in Peirce are not antiques but tools toward the future.

This entry was posted in Anthem, Inquiry, Logic, Mathematics, Peirce, Science, Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Approaching Peirce

  1. Ultimately things tend to simplify. They have to. When they do in our time and in the future, Peirce will be there, just as Marx and Freud were. Continuity. Fallibility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.