Dear list:
I appreciate Gary and list-moderators' earnest willfulness to maintain Ransdell’s original intention. It can be viewed as a thankless but beautiful responsibility. With respect to kirsti’s comment: "This time, John, I have to say: Wrong, wrong, wrong, You just don't know what you are talking about. - just walking on very thin ice and expecting your fame on other fields with get you through." *These remarks were seen by one lister as "denigrating" and by another as "untoward." I agreed and wrote Kirsti off-list.* I agree that it is denigrating and untoward. However, the despising, the disgust, reveals something of our nature and for that, I am thankful. For if only taken as denigrating and untoward, then what purpose does it serve? Best, Jerry R On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:03 PM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > Gary, list, > > First: I did not feel offended, I felt surprised. The expertice and > authority of John F. Sowa were so clear to me that I could not think of > anyone,least John, to take any offence in my stating my view so bluntly. - > Which I apologized. > > After the suprise I do feel offended. I was critisized for my tenor and > tone. > > Is there anything more personal, more 'ad hominem', as that? > > I wish the person or persons not liking my responses would take it up on > list, or post it to me. > > I do not understand how or why anything on P-list should be to anyone's > likings. > > End of this dicussion in my part. > > Kirsti > > > Gary Richmond kirjoitti 20.6.2017 23:30: > >> Kirsti, list, >> >> As list moderator and co-manager I try to follow what I consider to be >> the exemplary notions expressed by the founder and first manager and >> moderator of peirce-l, Joseph Ransdell, concerning what he considered >> to be best practices on the list. I may not always be as successful as >> Joe was in this, but I try to do the best I can. For Joe's remarks, >> see: HOW THE FORUM WORKS (scroll down a bit): >> >> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM [1] >> >> if you are new to the list or have not read them for some time, I >> highly recommend (re)reading Joe's remarks, something I do myself from >> time to time. >> >> In the current matter I would especially recommend reading these >> passages (I've inserted a very few of my own comments into these). >> >> CAVEAT ABOUT CORRECTING OTHERS >> >> ------------------------- >> >> It is expected that criticism will be vigorous and diligently pursued: >> philosophy is understood here to be essentially a critically directed >> and self-controlled conversation. But there is one important caveat in >> this connection: If you feel that some messages being posted are not >> to the purpose of the list or that there is something someone is doing >> which should be discouraged, do NOT attempt to rectify that yourself >> by posting a message to that effect to the list in general. Because >> there is so little overt or formal moderation by the list manager, it >> is natural to suppose that the individual members can and should take >> that role as needed. But this rarely if ever produces the effect >> intended, regardless of how reasonable it may seem at a particular >> time. Contact me instead off-list and we will see what can or should >> be done, if anything, without generating a chain reaction of protests >> and counter-protests, which are the typical result of attempting to >> rectify the problem on-list. >> >> GR: Following the practice Joe advised here, I was properly >>> contacted by three members of the list who found especially this >>> passage in a message from Kirsti addressed to John problematic: >>> Kirsti had written: >>> >>> "This time, John, I have to say: Wrong, wrong, wrong, You just don't >>> know what you are talking about. - just walking on very thin ice >>> and expecting your fame on other fields with get you through." >>> >>> THESE REMARKS WERE SEEN BY ONE LISTER AS "DENIGRATING" AND BY >>> ANOTHER AS "UNTOWARD." I AGREED AND WROTE KIRSTI OFF-LIST. >>> >> >> WHY THE LIST MANAGER SHOULD DO THE CORRECTING >> >> ------------------------- >> >> >> Should you contact the person yourself first, off-list, in an attempt >> to rectify their way of participating rather than bothering me with >> it? Although you do of course have a right—professional, moral, >> legal, whatever—to do this, and it may seem best to you, let me urge >> you to contact me first, nonetheless, unless there is some truly >> special and urgent reason to the contrary. There are several reasons >> for this: >> >> (1) None of us really knows yet what the most humane and productive >> communicational mores will turn out to be for communication of this >> sort: it is continually surprising, and if anything is certain here it >> is that our initial hunches tend to be unreliable. The list manager is >> more likely to understand enough about the dynamics of this particular >> list than anyone else, and has also had enough experience of these >> things to have learned what is likely to be the most effective >> response to something problematic. >> >> (2) It is the list manager who is ultimately responsible for the list, >> as regards institutional accountability. Speaking directly to this: I >> need to have these things under my own control if I am to handle >> judiciously the problems that can arise in such connections. I am open >> to advice and counsel at all times and try not to act imperiously. But >> there is no way that I can effectively delegate my responsibility to >> the list members, which would be essential if the members were >> themselves to participate in the management of the list other than as >> informal advisors in off-list discussion. >> >> (3) It is probably because everybody on the list understands (at least >> unreflectively) that no list members as such have any special right to >> regulate or moderate the conduct of others as list members that >> criticisms of one another that suggest directly or indirectly that >> someone is not of the proper sort to be on the list because of what >> they post are highly inflammatory and are the cause of most so-called >> "flame wars". >> >> Contrary to what one might think, "flame wars" do NOT begin because >> people, excited by ideas, sometimes go too far and say things they >> shouldn't. Errors like this are to be expected in a new discussion >> medium and they are easily corrected by apology and retraction >> immediately thereafter. Anybody who participates vigorously in this >> medium will make errors of judgment like this, and those familiar with >> the medium do not condemn one another for it. They do expect, though, >> that those who are at odds with one another in this way be both >> generous in their tolerance of the other when excess occurs and in >> their readiness to make verbal amends when excess is imputed to them. >> _When in doubt, apologize: you are never diminished by it._ >> >> GR: AGAIN, I WROTE KIRSTI OF THE OFF-LIST CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY >>> SEVERAL FORUM MEMBERS INCLUDING MY OWN CONCERNS. HER RESPONSE >>> ON-LIST SUGGESTS TO ME THAT SHE WAS CLEARLY OFFENDED BY THAT >>> MESSAGE. STILL, I THOUGHT THE WAY I APPROACHED IT WAS THE CORRECT >>> WAY TO DO SO. AND HER APOLOGY (REFLECTING WHAT IS EMPHASIZED IN >>> JOE'S COMMENTS JUST ABOVE) IS CERTAINLY APPRECIATED, AT VERY LEAST >>> BY ME. >>> >> >> THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IN THE PROTECTION OF REPUTATION >> >> ------------------------- >> >> Special situations do arise, though, in which someone feels aggrieved >> at what someone else has said to or about them in the public forum and >> feels it important to set the record straight in the forum as well, >> not necessarily out of anger but as a matter of the practical need to >> exercise self-defense of reputation as regards personal or >> professional comportment. I will address this more fully and >> adequately in an appendix below, but it should be understood that not >> even the list manager has the right to deny to a person the >> opportunity of rectifying, by speaking in his or her own behalf, what >> he or she believes to be serious misunderstandings about themselves as >> persons, private or public, that have been or are being generated in >> the forum. _This right of personal self-defense must be respected, >> even when the person seems to be mistaken or to be using poor judgment >> in pursuing it._ See the appendix in further explanation of the reason >> for this and for some procedural points and policies that are >> especially important in this connection. >> >> GR: SO, KIRSTI INDEED HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF SINCE SHE >>> CLEARLY FEELS MALIGNED BY ME (BTW, NOTE THAT WHILE I CC'D BEN UDELL, >>> LIST CO-MANAGER, MY NOTE TO KIRSTI, HE DID NOT HIMSELF PARTICIPATE >>> IN THE WRITING OF IT). >>> >> >> THE PUBLIC AND THE PERSONAL >> >> ------------------------- >> >> If you are new to this discussion medium you may make the common >> mistake of thinking that a public forum should be impersonal. Not so. >> In fact, all relationships of persons established here in virtue of >> becoming a subscriber to the list are necessarily person-to-person >> relationships. PEIRCE-L is not a community or a group, though it will >> hopefully function to encourage community relationships. It is simply >> a place where persons talk to persons in a public setting, and it is >> normal to address one another personally while speaking in a public >> place. The personal is not the same as the private. The question is >> whether the discussion concerns matters that pertain to the purpose of >> the forum in general, and when that condition is met it is quite in >> order to pursue special interests in public in list-based discussions >> of this sort as long as there is nothing exclusive of others in it, >> either explicitly or in tone. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator and co-manager) >> >> GARY RICHMOND >> PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL THINKING >> COMMUNICATION STUDIES >> LAGUARDIA COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK >> C 745 >> 718 482-5690 [2] >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:30 PM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: >> >> Dear John, >>> >>> I sincerely apologize for any negative feelings my latest mail >>> addressed to you may have caused. >>> >>> I have been reprimanded by list managers that my tenor and tone are >>> not tolerated. In a democratic list, so I am told. >>> >>> There have been three complaints. Off-list. So I'm told. >>> >>> My rare praises have been out-of-place and unfounded too. So I have >>> been told as well. >>> >>> Hereby I publicly apologize for both kinds of responses. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Kirsti >>> >>> kirst...@saunalahti.fi kirjoitti 10.11.2016 15:51: >>> John, list, >>> >>> Most important points you take up, John. Time-sequences between >>> stories do not apply. - The big-bang is just a story,one on many >>> just >>> as possible stories. >>> >>> Time-scales are just as crucial with the between - issue as are >>> storywise arising issues. There are no easy ways out ot the >>> time-scale >>> issues. >>> >>> Best, Kirsti >>> >>> John F Sowa kirjoitti 9.11.2016 21:25: >>> Edwina, Kirsti, list, >>> >>> ET >>> I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. >>> >>> I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the >>> issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt from >>> p. 2 >>> of a book on biosemiotics (see below). Following is the critical >>> point: >>> >>> GB >>> thinking in terms of stories must be shared by all mind or minds >>> whether ours or those of redwood forests and sea anemones... >>> A story is a little knot or complex of that species of >>> connectedness which we call relevance. >>> >>> This observation is compatible with Peirce, but CSP used the term >>> 'quasi-mind' to accommodate the species-bias of most humans: >>> >>> CP 4.551 >>> Admitting that connected Signs must have a Quasi-mind, it may >>> further >>> be declared that there can be no isolated sign. Moreover, signs >>> require at least two Quasi-minds; a Quasi-utterer and a Quasi- >>> interpreter; and although these two are at one (i.e., are one mind) >>> in the sign itself, they must nevertheless be distinct. In the >>> Sign >>> they are, so to say, welded. Accordingly, it is not merely a fact >>> of human Psychology, but a necessity of Logic, that every logical >>> evolution of thought should be dialogic. >>> >>> Re time: We have to distinguish (1) time as it is in reality >>> (whatever that may be); (2) time in our stories (which include the >>> formalized stories called physics); (3) the mental sequence of >>> thought; and (4) the logical sequence (dialogic) of connected >>> signs. >>> >>> ET >>> The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the >>> so-called >>> Big Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S [not John S] >>> read them as BEFORE. In my reading, before the Big Bang, there was >>> Nothing, not even Platonic worlds. >>> >>> This question is about time sequences in different kinds of >>> stories: >>> the Big Bang story about what reality may be; and Platonic stories >>> about ideal, mathematical forms. >>> >>> The time sequence of a mathematical story is independent of the >>> time >>> sequence of a physical story. We may apply the math (for example, >>> the definitions, axioms, and proofs of a Platonic form) to the >>> construction of a physical story. >>> >>> But that application is a mapping between two stories. The term >>> 'prior to' is meaningful only *within* a story, not between >>> stories. >>> >>> In short, our "commonsense" notion of time is an abstraction from >>> the stories we tell about our experience. The time sequences in >>> two >>> different stories may have some similarities, but we must >>> distinguish >>> three distinct sequences: the time sequences of each story, and >>> the >>> time sequence of the mapping, which is a kind of meta-story. >>> >>> JFS >>> Does anyone know if [Peirce] had written anything about embedding >>> our universe in a hypothetical space of higher dimension? >>> >> >> KM >> >> I am most interested in knowing more on this. >>> >> >> David Finkelstein, p. 277 of the reference below: >> >> Peirce seems to have included geometry in his evolutionism, at least >>> in principle... [He] seems not to have responded to the >>> continuously- >>> evolving physical geometry of Riemann and Clifford... nor to >>> Einstein's >>> conceptual unification of space and time. >>> >> >> In any case, I think that the notion of time as an abstraction from >> stories -- imaginary, factual, or theoretical -- provides a way of >> relating different views. It also allows for metalevel reasoning >> that can distinguish and relate different kinds of stories that >> have independent time scales and sequences. >> >> John >> ____________________________________________________________________ >> >> From Google books: >> >> _A Legacy for Living Systems: Gregory Bateson as Precursor >> to Biosemiotics_ edited by Jesper Hoffmeyer, Springer, 2008: >> >> https://books.google.com/books?id=dcHqVpZ97pUC&pg=PA246&lpg= >> PA246&dq=Order+is+simply+thought+embodied+in+arrangemen >> t&source=bl&ots=DQUnZlvOYu&sig=X8bH0YAG597uwjyedB4dSf2BuC >> 0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizyZD88JrQAhVENxQKHeEeBwoQ6AEIHTAA# >> v=onepage&q=Order%20is%20simply%20thought%20embodied% >> 20in%20arrangement&f=false >> [3] >> >> David R. Finkelstein, _Quantum Relativity: A Synthesis of the Ideas >> of Heisenberg and Einstein_, Springer, 1996. >> >> https://books.google.com/books?id=OvjsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg= >> PA277&dq=peirce+relativity&source=bl&ots=0rc7kjxqIJ&sig= >> Hsgtu9_LwZAoDxH7kbVgvWmAfiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk4SzpZ >> zQAhWF3YMKHR1kA5wQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=peirce%20relativity&f=false >> [4] >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 [5] . >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM >> [2] tel:(718)%20482-5690 >> [3] >> https://books.google.com/books?id=dcHqVpZ97pUC&pg=PA246&; >> amp;lpg=PA246&dq=Order+is+simply+thought+embodied+in+ >> arrangement&source=bl&ots=DQUnZlvOYu&sig=X8bH0YA >> G597uwjyedB4dSf2BuC0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizy >> ZD88JrQAhVENxQKHeEeBwoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Order%20is% >> 20simply%20thought%20embodied%20in%20arrangement&f=false >> [4] >> https://books.google.com/books?id=OvjsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&; >> amp;lpg=PA277&dq=peirce+relativity&source=bl& >> ots=0rc7kjxqIJ&sig=Hsgtu9_LwZAoDxH7kbVgvWmAfiI&hl= >> en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk4SzpZzQAhWF3YMKHR1kA5wQ6AEIHzA >> A#v=onepage&q=peirce%20relativity&f=false >> [5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
