Re: Peirce List Discussion • GF • GF • GR

In our “Inquiry as Action : Risk of Inquiry” paper, originally presented at a conference on “Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences”, Susan and I sought to trace the interminglings of signs and inquiry and the theories thereof.  We pursued their trajectory through three points of reference:  Aristotle, Peirce, and Dewey.  We noted both convergences and divergences in the views of the assembled authors, and the course of true signs never did run smooth, as everyone knows, or eventually finds out

We characterized Aristotle’s treatment “On Interpretation” (where the implied relationship between a sign and its object is a two-step linkage that pivots on what Peirce would call an interpretant sign) as “in part a reasonable approximation and in part a suggestive metaphor, suitable as a first approach to a complex subject”.  It makes for a good start, but ultimately falls short of grasping the full triadicity of sign relations.

References

• 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.