Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

[Kenneth Ketner <kenneth.ketner AT ttu.edu>]

I don't agree that the infallibility of the Catholic Church falls under 
Peirce's first three methods (tenacity, authority, fashion) - but I 
could be wrong.

I say that from being familiar with Peirce's writings.

However, to be thorough, it is proper to consider the other half of the 
remark and ask just what is considered infallible within the Roman 
Church? Are all Papal encyclicals infallible? all teachings? or just one 
or two items? A friend once told me that the doctrine of the assumption 
of Mary is the only infallible teaching so far since the doctrine of 
infallibility was announced late in the nineteenth century (wasn't it 
Pius IX?). These aren't picky questions - I am inquiring to find out, 
since my knowledge is weak in that area. It seems wise to find out the 
meaning and scope of infallibility in this setting before thinking 
further about it.

Karey L. Perkins wrote:
> Mike,
>  
> Thanks for the references, that was just what I was looking for.  The 
> Peirce literature is so comprehensive it's overwhelming, and unlike my 
> studies of Percy, I have no idea where to start.  I almost didn't do 
> this topic because I am not trained in semiotics (semeiotics?) and most 
> of this is now self taught.  But I have been reading "American 
> Signatures" which says that most semioticians are self taught (as was 
> Percy).  So I'm not alone, but I still don't have a clear path of 
> reading mapped out.
>  
> Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he 
> intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, 
> etc.  But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she 
> dropped -- what she missed.  I believe it was early in my reading, in 
> "Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go 
> back and look.  I thought someone else might have been familiar with it.
>  
> Peirce, unlike Percy, was eagerly ready to reject that which did not 
> conform to "the method of science" as a manner of fixing belief.  So he 
> rejected the "method of tradition" "method of authority" and "method of 
> fashion."   The infallibility of the Catholic church would fall under 
> those.  And if anyone has read Peirce's "Fixation of Belief," which was 
> the first essay I read, Peirce clearly asserts that the idea of 
> transubstantiation just can't be.  I don't know if he continued with 
> this opinion or not for the rest of his life, as it seems he changed as 
> he grew older.  However, this is clearly contradictory to Percy's 
> beliefs, and explains why Percy called himself only a "Thief of Peirce" 
> rather than embracing Peirce's whole philosophy.  Still, Percy gives no 
> reason (that I have found) for rejecting the triad in favor of the 
> triangle.  Your solution of viewing the AREA of the triangle as the 
> triadic content is one resolution to the problem, but was Percy viewing 
> it that way?  I think he wanted to put it all on the interpretant (one 
> point of the triangle) to differentiate it from dyadic behavior and to 
> say something special was happening there, within the interpretant. 
> That's where the triadic event was taking place.  But then why do we 
> need the idea of the triangle at all?  It gets back to Cartesian dualism 
> (something non-material is within man) and this is why I think Percy was 
> expressing in his letters to Ken Ketner some doubt as to whether 
> Peirce's triads (notwithstanding Peirce's other writings) could refute 
> Descartes.  However, I don't quite get how Peirce's triads solve the 
> problem either.
>  
> Just some things I'm wondering about.  I am interested in the work that 
> has been done on this after Percy.  Any way to find out what that is?
>  
> KP
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Frentz <mailto:mfrentz AT bbn.com>
> To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion 
> <mailto:percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language 
> theory --
>
> Karey,
>
> re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and 
> floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I 
> wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon).  Interesting 
> coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis 
> (interpretant spawning yet another sign). 
>
> Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs
>  http 
> <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html>://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html 
> <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html>
>
> Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 
> 10" still aren't to be found.  Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, 
> Signs, and Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area.
>
> re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is 
> irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather 
> than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic 
> relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this.  I find it 
> interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation 
> in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the 
> Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a 
> graphical computer.  BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to 
> surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: 
> Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) 
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253337364/qid=1060976640/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-6625231-4959935?v=glance&s=books> 
>
> by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much 
> to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back).  Like 
> having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to 
> have had this book)
>
> I find it striking how different research is today because of the web 
> vs. when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's 
> Thief of Peirce dialogues).  Also, a lot of work has been done in this 
> area since his death.
>
> re the third question:  I dunno?  I'd be interested if you do find the 
> reference.  I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came 
> away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less 
> Pe*rc*an directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've 
> never followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's 
> work wrt CSP's legacy.
>
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
>
> At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > No -- I'm certainly no moderator!  But I am fascinated by the fact 
> > that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but 
> > Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest?  There's so much he 
> > left unfinished and so much to investigate.  If he had lived longer, I 
> > think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the 
> > answer to, what is the interpretant?  He died before he could solve it.
> >  
> > So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice...
> >  
> > What is the interpretant?
> >  
> > Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument 
> > was given against it?
> >  
> > What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up?  (I believe he says 
> > what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere)
> >  
> > KP
> >  
> >  
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Parlin, Steven <mailto:PARLINS AT culver.org>
> > To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' 
> > <mailto:percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM
> > Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my
> > inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the
> > moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the 
> > list.
> >
> >
> > I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey.
> >
> > Please forgive my presumption.
> >
> > I'm an ass. 
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck AT iupui.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM
> > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
> > Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> > Why are we getting triplicates of your posting??
> > -DB
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote:
> >
> >
> >   [NON-Text Body part not included]
> >
> >
> >
> > David Beck                                        
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > An archive of all list discussion is available at
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
> >
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
> > --
> >
> > An archive of all list discussion is available at 
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
> >
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
> > --
> >
> > An archive of all list discussion is available at 
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
> >
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> An archive of all list discussion is available at 
> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
>
> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> An archive of all list discussion is available at 
> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
>
> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy


--
  Kenneth L. Ketner
Paul Whitfield Horn Professor
Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism
Texas Tech University
  Charles Sanders Peirce Interdisciplinary Professor
  School of Nursing
  Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
Lubbock, TX 79409-0002
806 742 3128
  Office email: kenneth.ketner AT ttu.edu
  Home email: ketner AT arisbeassociates.com
Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net
Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net