Abstract
Walker Percy was singularly focused on understanding the structure of symbolic behavior, what he called one of the “essential features of symbolic knowing.” Percy sought understanding of the nature of the symbol in linguistics, sociology, philosophy, theology, and anthropology, but to no avail.
Percy had “been at some pains to sketch out an ‘anthropology,’ a theory of man” and hoped to use “CSP’s (Charles Sanders Peirce) ‘ontology’ of Secondness and Thirdness (not Firstness) as the ground for a more or less scientific introduction to a philosophical anthropology.”
Taking his word that he had been working on such a project and finding no singular work of Percy containing such a sketch suggests that its components might be found scattered throughout his writing. The purpose of this essay is not to provide a possible entire account of his sketch but instead to examine one clear major component of that sketch, “The Lay-Scientific Interface.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
“Firstness,” “Secondness,” and “Thirdness” refer to Peirce’s Categories.
- 3.
The sketch, as sustained inquiry, at least in its written form, began sometime around the late 1950s and ended sometime around the early-to-mid 1980s.
- 4.
When thinking of Percy as philosopher it is more correct to think of him as a natural philosopher as understood in the nineteenth century.
- 5.
For a description and consideration of a scientific option for doing philosophy see Scott 2006.
- 6.
For an understanding of “Novel Science” see Ketner 1993, pp. 33–59.
- 7.
Especially pp. 469–475.
- 8.
In general, the visible or tangible form of anything, but also a mystical type; an antecedent symbol or emblem; that which prefigures or represents a coming reality.
See Peirce 1900, p. 2209.
- 9.
This word is not being used here as nor is it to be understood as a denigration of the nature of the text. It is in fact used to indicate exactly the opposite. See Peirce 1908, especially pp. 92–98.
- 10.
Musement can also be thought of as a certain kind of scientific philosophical consideration of the question at hand.
- 11.
This is an interesting “posit,” as later in the story, the ideas of “placement” and “being placed” become very important. What this might mean is that the later discussions of “placement” might become discussions of “placements of places” or “placements of placings.”
- 12.
Environment (signal-user)—“those elements of the Cosmos which affect the organism significantly (Saturn does not) and to which the organism either is genetically coded to respond or has learned to respond.” World (sign-user)—“is segmented and named by language. All perceived objects and actions and qualities are named.” Culture—“the main elements of cultural activity are in their most characteristic moments also assertory in nature. The central acts of language, of worship, of myth-making, of story-telling, of art, as well as of science are assertions.”
“An environment, in his [Percy’s] sense, is a setting in which only efficient causal relations are to be found. A world, on the other hand, along with environmental factors, also includes significance, meaning, interpretation, understanding, and selves. … Or worlds are not reducible to environments.
- 13.
The “Lay” here have backed away from or are at a remove from the world in that they have disposed of it theoretically.
- 14.
“Present” here is to be understood as it is used in medicine, to appear for examination.
- 15.
With the object consisting of the extent to which each is able to take each other’s meaning as indicated by observable behaviors toward each other. See Ketner (Chap. 7) in this volume.
- 16.
A case could be made that the opportunity to explore and analyze “The Lay-Scientific Interface” in a formal clinical setting was certainly a, if not the, major factor in Percy’s agreeing to participate in Harris’s research project. For a brief account of Percy’s participation in this project see Cunningham 2004.
- 17.
Encounters between characters that embody the mutually exclusive “Lay” and “Scientific” conceptions of man can also be found in dialog not occurring in clinical therapeutic settings. I say “clinical therapeutic settings” in that there are certainly encounters between characters in Percy’s novels under ordinary, everyday conditions that are therapeutic.
- 18.
An interesting discussion of the exchange between Barrett and Gamow can be found in Lawson 1996, pp. 180–194. No doubt at least one great tome could be written on the occurrences of “The Lay-Scientific Interface” in Percy’s novels.
However, the purpose of this essay is to show from his non-fiction that “The Lay-Scientific Interface” provides a foundation for his sketch of a scientific philosophical anthropology.
- 19.
Argument could be made that Percy experimented with and attempted to observe “The Lay-Scientific Interface” phenomenon in nearly all of his writing.
- 20.
Methodeutic—this shows how to conduct an inquiry.
- 21.
Argument could be made that Percy experimented with and attempted to observe “The Lay-Scientific Interface” phenomenon in nearly all of his writing.
- 22.
That is, more realist and Peircean than Morris; see Ketner (Chap. 7) in this volume, Percy’s terminology was still not clear in his mind at this early moment.
- 23.
It is interesting to note that on the offprint Percy sent to his friend F. Gentry Harris, M.D., Percy typed “An early approach to the artistic employment of the tetrad.”
- 24.
“Therefore, intersubjective communication is not a strictly causal matter.”
- 25.
- 26.
In this article Percy puts forward his tetrad as a revision of the sign triad.
- 27.
Percy’s use of “unified science” here refers to doctrines found in 20 introductory monographs bound as Neurath et al. 1955.
- 28.
That is, bad Morrissean semiotics.
- 29.
That is, more realist and Peircean than Morris; see Ketner in this volume, Percy’s terminology was still not clear in his mind at this early moment.
- 30.
See Veatch 1952, pp. 8–10, 24–27, 37–38.
- 31.
“in another mode of existence.”
- 32.
Percy 1957, pp. 227–228.
- 33.
Signal using is a dyadic relation.
- 34.
This “something” Percy called “coupling.”
- 35.
Antinomy—contradiction … a paradox
- 36.
In logic this is to explain or limit by adding differences. I am using Peirce’s sense of “determine” here. See Peirce 1868a. There are also helpful passages regarding the meaning of “determined” in Samway 1995, pp. 35–36. Also as with the use of the word “musement,” the use of the word “vague” is not meant to be seen as being derogatory. To understand the idea of vagueness see Brock 1969 and 1979.
- 37.
The therapist-patient relation, either directly experienced by or recalled by characters, is a regular occurrence in Percy’s novels.
- 38.
F. Gentry Harris recommended the reading of Pilisuk 1963 to Percy. This article might be of interest to those interested in what sources might have contributed to Percy’s understanding of the patient-therapist relationship.
- 39.
Percy had sent F. Gentry Harris, M.D. an offprint of “Symbolic Structure.” At the bottom of the page in the offprint where Percy was writing about the therapist-patient interaction Harris wrote, “If I understand rightly, a much better example, + one much more useful + less precious, is H. Kaiser,” Psychiatry 18: 205–211, 1955. I was able to ask Harris about this and if he had made the comment to Percy. Harris said, “Yes” and laughed. Intrigued by his laughter, and thinking it possibly had something to do with how Percy responded, I asked him if Percy had replied. Harris said, “Yes, he told me to f_ _k off.”
- 40.
Four years later while working with F. Gentry Harris, M.D. on a project at NIMH in one of the project documents in which Percy is analyzing the therapist-patient interaction, he draws a diagram of the interactive field and denotes a line within it as “the membrane.”
- 41.
Signal—a dyadic relation.
- 42.
It is interesting to note that this was written in 1961 shortly before Percy began to work with F. Gentry Harris, M.D. on a project at NIMH. In this Percy writes, “In the study of a spoken language-event, a written transcript is, of course, wholly unacceptable. All phonetics and modifiers are omitted. Even a tape recording is inadequate since it does not transmit gestures.” While working on the project at NIMH transcripts and tape recordings were all the materials with which Percy had to work.
- 43.
Percy 1972, p. 3. This is interesting. This could mean, “in the formal ways known to Walker Percy,” whereas other formal ways such as semeiotic might be able to pull it off.
- 44.
Semeiotic—an experimental and observational science in which scientific intelligences (semioticists) observe and experiment upon the activities of other scientific intelligences in order to achieve a natural philosophy of the semiosis of scientific intelligence. Semiotic is composed of Speculative Grammar, Critic, and Methodeutic.
- 45.
It is clear from his comments that Percy does not intend this piece as hagiography. His intent is “to disentangle from (Peirce’s) metaphysic those insights germane to a view of language as behavior.”
- 46.
Percy points out that Peirce’s distinction between dyadic and triadic behavior has been noted before, but, as for example with the “unified science” crowd (i.e. Neurath et al.), that the triadic relation is recognized as understood as an unorganized collection of dyads.
- 47.
To prevent the disruption of reading the definitions contained in the multiple subsections of the two postulates have been placed in an appendix. These are included because “The Lay-Scientific Interface” is mentioned several times in the subsections.
- 48.
Percy also referred to this as “asserter.”
- 49.
If you are interested in the concept of coupling and its relation to “The Lay-Scientific Interface,” it is highly recommended that you read Percy’s definitions and commentary about the two postulates. The definitions and commentary generally fall into two groups: observations pertaining to the coupling relation both within and between representatives of the two groups and observations on “The Lay-Scientific Interface” phenomenon itself.
References
Bisanz, E., et al. 2011. Peirce’s NonReduction and Relational Completeness Claims in the Context of First-Order Predicate Logic. KODIKAS /CODE, Ars Semiotica 34: 1–2.
Brock, Jarrett. 1969. C. S. Peirce’s Logic of Vagueness. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest/DAI, (287941332/7013254).
———. 1979. Principal Themes in Peirce’s Logic of Vagueness. In: Peirce Studies Number 1, Studies in Peirce’s Semiotic: A Symposium by Members of the Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism, 41–49. Lubbock: Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism.
Cunningham, Scott. 2004. Walker Percy at the NIMH: A Story You May Not Have Heard. Unpublished Manuscript. On file at the Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah, ed. 1992. Martin Buber: On Intersubjectivity and Cultural Creativity. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Gerhart, Mary, and Allan Melvin Russell. 1984. Metaphoric Process: The Creation of Scientific and Religious Understanding. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.
Ketner, Kenneth Laine. 1993. Novel Science: Or How Contemporary Social Science Is Not Well and Why Literature and Semiotic Provide a Cure. Semiotica 93 (1993): 33–59.
———. 1995. Charles Sanders Peirce: Physicist and Non-Philosopher. Invited Paper Read for the American Physical Society, Texas, Unpublished Manuscript. On file at the Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Kierkegaard, Søren. 1962. The Present Age and of the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle. Trans. Alexander Dru. New York and Evanston: Harper and Row.
Lawson, Lewis A. 1996. Will Barrett’s Psychoanalysis. In: Still Following Percy, 180–194. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Lewontin, Richard, and Richard Levins. 2002. Stephen Jay Gould—What Does It Mean To Be a Radical? Monthly Review 54 (06).
McLaughlin, T., et al. 2015. “Betagraphic”: An Alternative Formulation of Predicate Calculus. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 51 (2): 137–172.
Neurath, Otto, Charles Morris, and Rudolf Carnap. 1955. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1868a–1. Letter to the Editor of The Journal of Speculative Philosophy Whose Purpose was to Clarify What He Meant by “Determined” (Vol. 2, pp. 190–191).
———. Some Consequences of Four Incapacities. In: Peirce 1984, 140–157.
———. 1984. Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Volume 2. Letter to the Editor of Journal of Speculative Philosophy. pp. 190–191.
———. Some Consequences of Four Incapacities. In: The Century Dictionary: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, ed. William Dwight Whitney et al. New York: The Century Co.
———. Some Consequences of Four Incapacities. In Peirce 1908–1909. A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God. The Hibbert Journal VII: 90–112. But especially pp. 92–98.
Percy, Walker. 1950–1980. [unpublished manuscript]. Walker Percy Papers (4294). Southern Historical Collection, Louis Round Wilson Special Collections Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
———. 1954. Symbol as Need. Thought xxix (Autumn): 381–390.
———. 1955. Unpublished manuscripts held at The Percy Archives. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
———. 1957. Semiotic and a Theory of Knowledge. Modern Schoolman xxxiv: 23–246.
———. 1958a. Culture: The Antinomy of the Scientific Method. New Scholasticism XXXII: 443–475.
———. 1958b. Metaphor as Mistake. Sewanee Review 66: 79–99.
———. 1959. The Message in the Bottle. Thought 34: 405–433.
———. 1961. The Symbolic Structure of Interpersonal Process. Psychiatry 24 (1): 39–52.
———. 1971. Walter M. Miller Jr.’s A Canticle for Leibowitz: A Rediscovery. The Southern Review 7: 572–578.
———. 1972. Toward a Triadic Theory of Meaning. Psychiatry 35: 1–19.
———. 1983. Lost in the Cosmos. New York: The Noonday Press, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
———. 1985. Diagnosing the Modern Malaise. New Orleans: Faust Publishing.
———. 1989. The Fateful Rift: The San Andreas Fault in the Modern Mind. Excerpted as “The Divided Creature”. The Wilson Quarterly 13: 77–87. (Unpublished in final form).
Pilisuk, Marc. 1963. Cognitive Balance, Primary Groups, and the Patient-Therapist Relationship. Behavioral Science 8 (2): 137–145.
Samway, Patrick, S. J., ed. 1995. A Thief of Peirce: The Letters of Kenneth Laine Ketner and Walker Percy. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Scott, Frances Williams. 2006. C. S. Peirce’s System of Science: Life as a Laboratory. Peirce Studies Number Seven. Lubbock: ArisbeBooks.
Stuhr, John J. 1987. Classical American Philosophy. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unspecified Authors. 2015. “Betagraphic”: An Alternative Formulation of Predicate Calculus. Interdisciplinary Seminar on Peirce. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 51 (2): 137–172.
Veatch, Henry Babcock. 1952. Intentional Logic: A Logic Based on Philosophical Realism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
———. 1969. Two Logics: The Conflict Between Classical and Neo-Analytic Philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cunningham, S.R. (2018). An Attempt Toward a Natural/Unnatural History of The Lay-Scientific Interface or How Walker Percy Got on the Way to Becoming a Radical (Anthropologist). In: Marsh, L. (eds) Walker Percy, Philosopher. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77968-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77968-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77967-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77968-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)