Thanks Jon, No experience in the Beautiful...
Best, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > JR: I gather from this remark that you are still more interested in being > proved correct than whether the argument is to be decided for its own sake. > > > On what basis do you "gather" that? How does any argument get "decided > for its own sake"? > > JR: That is, how many times and in how many different ways must I ask you > to look to CP 5.189? > > > We had that discussion already, in its own thread. Besides, CP 6.469 is > part of the article that is supposed to be the subject of *this *thread. > > JR: Hth, Jerry R > > > Nidn, > > Jon S. > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear list: >> >> >> >> Stephen: >> >> >> >> I see you. I recognize you. I hear your complaint. >> >> >> >> Jon: >> >> >> >> You said: >> >> As was clear from the context of that remark, I was referring >> specifically to the dispute between Edwina and me. Rather than taking her >> word or mine for it, everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw >> their own conclusions about whether her posts reflect a valid >> interpretation of his writings or an objectively different analytic >> framework from his. >> >> >> >> I gather from this remark that you are still more interested in being >> proved correct than whether the argument is to be decided for its own >> sake. >> >> >> >> You said: >> >> At this point, Edwina and I are evidently both quite satisfied with our >> respective positions, and thus would require something more than paper >> doubt in order to reconsider them seriously. >> >> >> >> So, you have no more to add to your arguments and therefore, are prepared >> to walk away because all you see is more disputation. I get it. Why keep >> talking when all that’s happening is talking. >> >> >> >> You said: >> >> If you see a way forward that would resolve the impasse, *I suggest that >> you spell it out for us*. >> >> >> >> I would ask you to look at your above comment next to: >> >> >> >> *So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep >> us in suspense? If you are* *the Christ, tell us plainly.”* >> >> >> >> *Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe… I and the >> Father are one.” **The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.* >> >> >> *Jesus answered them, **“I have shown you many good works from the >> Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” …* >> >> *…If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;* *but >> if I do them,* *even though you do not believe me, believe the works, >> that you may know and understand that* *the Father is in me and I am in >> the Father.” * >> >> >> >> *Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.* >> >> ~John 10:24-38 >> >> >> >> MENO: *When you have told me what I ask, I will tell you*, Socrates. >> >> SOCRATES: A man who was blindfolded has only to hear you talking, and he >> would know that you are a fair creature and have still many lovers. >> >> MENO: Why do you think so? >> >> SOCRATES: Why, because you always speak in imperatives: like all beauties >> when they are in their prime, you are tyrannical... >> >> MENO: That, Socrates, appears to me to be an admirable answer. >> >> SOCRATES: Why, yes, because it *happens to be one which you have been in >> the habit of hearing*: and your wit will have discovered, I suspect, >> that you may explain in the same way the nature of sound and smell, and of >> many other similar phenomena. >> >> _______ >> >> >> >> That is, how many times and in how many different ways must I ask you to >> look to CP 5.189? More importantly, you must first decide if that is the >> normative form. If it is the normative form, then cede authority to it. >> Look to it for answers rather than stating your position repeatedly, for it >> is clear from your ongoing disputations that there is something to his >> philosophy that is missing from your perspective. Either that or we are >> all fools. >> >> >> >> Hth, >> Jerry R >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Jerry R., List: >>> >>> As was clear from the context of that remark, I was referring >>> specifically to the dispute between Edwina and me. Rather than taking her >>> word or mine for it, everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw >>> their own conclusions about whether her posts reflect a valid >>> interpretation of his writings or an objectively different analytic >>> framework from his. At this point, Edwina and I are evidently both quite >>> satisfied with our respective positions, and thus would require something >>> more than paper doubt in order to reconsider them seriously. If you see a >>> way forward that would resolve the impasse, I suggest that you spell it out >>> for us. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear list: >>>> >>>> Jon, you said, >>>> "At least we agree that everyone should read Peirce for themselves and >>>> draw their own conclusions." >>>> >>>> This is NOT what is meant by Peircean intention. You have no farther >>>> than to look into his disagreement with James to know this. In fact, this >>>> is of such a problematic nature, it is a reason for re-naming his >>>> philosophy. >>>> “*People say: between two opposed opinions the truth lies in the >>>> middle. Not at all! Between them lies the problem, what is unseeable, >>>> eternally active life, contemplated [gedacht] in repose.”* ~Goethe >>>> (MR, no. 616) >>>> >>>> >>>> At this point, I'd like to remind you again of *Fixation of Belief *and >>>> to recommend that you apply his scientific method. But it would require >>>> that we even know what it is. Clearly, either Peirce was not able to make >>>> his idea clear enough for us to implement his intention or we can't see it >>>> because of the obstructive nature of our own experiences. >>>> >>>> >>>> Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to >>>> be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that >>>> this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not >>>> extend to that of other men. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Jerry R >>>> >>>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
