The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes • 6

Re: Peirce List • Gary Fuhrman

The uses to which Susan Awbrey and I turned Aristotle’s passage from De Interp can be found in our paper from 1992/1995.

  • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.
  • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.  Archive, Journal, Online.

To get the ball rolling, or ping-ponging as the case may be, let me refer to a few points from our Inquiry paper that came to mind as I skimmed Gary Fuhrman’s post on “Rhematics” and Gary Richmond’s comment on it.

The main thing that strikes me is a thing that never ceases to surprise me — I see there remains a persistent desire to parse symbols into simpler signs like icons and indices, or to say that genuine triadicity has its genesis in some kind of coitus between degenerate species.  I suppose bi-o-logical metaphors are bound to lead innocents down that path, and I guess we all fall into the sinns of simile from time to time, but due care of our semiotic souls should keep us from turning that error into doctrine, if we wit what’s good for us.

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Complementarity, Inquiry, Laws of Form, Logic, Mathematics, Peirce, Philosophy, Physics, Pragmatism, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Science, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Spencer Brown and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment

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