Dear list,
haha! Though I am certain it is not our intention, I don’t think it is possible to subvert the goal of spreading his method any better than to go on doing what we are doing. Perhaps our goal is not to win/come to consensus, but to push a tie forever.. Dan suggests a useful way (guiding light) forward.. but why isn’t even *that* working? Best, Jerry R On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dan Everett <danleveret...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Edwina on ad hominem arguments (based on a person’s worth or > unworth in a given subject). But as I have said before here, one must be > able to distinguish interpretations based on their practical results. All > terms have to be interpreted in light of the pragmatic maxim. Straying away > from that moves into Popperian concerns about essentialism, which is > usually pointless. > > A terminological dispute that cannot be resolved via an experiment or via > some other form of data is of lesser importance. > > Dan > > On Apr 1, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > JAS - with regard to your post - who do you think should be the > authorities who decide on, as you say, what is 'an accurate understanding > of Peirce's work'??? Is there some kind of - oh, upper level hierarchy of > Peircean scholars, who are set up [how? by whom?] to decide on what is > 'such an accurate understanding"??? What happens if these elites decide > that your research 'does not show an accurate understanding'? Is it deemed > - 'unPeircean'? > > As for newcomers to Peirce's work, don't you think that they should be > allowed to read and interpret Peirce's work on their own - rather than > being told to accept The Right Way To Think About Peirce by this set of > assumed Peircean authorities? > > And as for disagreement - as I've always said - I'm fine with that. That's > the whole point of a list where we are all equal explorers. However, being > told that one's views are 'unPeircean' is not disagreement. It is the > setting up of one person as the Ultimate Authority/Gatekeeper - and the > other person is defined as an ignoramus. > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Mon 01/04/19 7:43 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: ... IF this particular Peirce list itself has no interest in > examining how Peirce's work can be used in the pragmatic 'real' world - > then, why am I even bothering to wish such a thing? > > > The antecedent of this conditional is false. Plenty of List participants > have expressed their desire to foster such applications, and I have > actually done so myself within my profession of structural engineering; but > the starting point must be an accurate understanding of Peirce's work. > > ET: I don't like to see Peirce 'publicized' so to speak, via an important > list - as functioning only in that one area that this small group are > focused on. Peircean semiosis is much more than this - and I don't think > we should accept such a reduction. > > > What is posted on-List is whatever List members freely choose to post. > Those of us with strong interest in Peirce's philosophical views just > happen to be the ones who post the most these days; and we should not be > deterred from continuing to have such discussions, either. There is > plenty of room on the List for all kinds of topics, as long as they pertain > in some way to Peirce's thought--which is not much of a limitation, given > the breadth of his competence. > > ET: Furthermore - newcomers to Peirce should, I think, be made aware of > the pragmatic functionality of the Peircean analytic frame - as I have > outlined - and how it can be extended, as Peirce himself did, into > examining the real existential world. > > > Newcomers to Peirce should first be made aware of Peirce's own analytic > frame, including his typically very precise terminology. Then they will > be in a position to compare it with various adjustments and alternatives, > such as what you have outlined. > > ET: So- just because I am met with either silence or hostility by a few > ... > > > Disagreement is not hostility. This is an open forum, where anyone is > welcome to state any opinion related to Peirce--as long as they do so > respectfully, and are willing and able to back it up with evidence. For > example, I have repeatedly expressed and defended my opinion that some of > what you characterize as "the Peircean analytic frame" is inconsistent with > Peirce's own texts. I stand by that opinion, which is not an insult--after > all, I have acknowledged that some of my own current views about > Speculative Grammar are not identical to Peirce's. > > I have every right to compare what anyone else writes with what Peirce > wrote, and then to point out what I see as obvious discrepancies--and > others have every right to do the same with what I write. In fact, I see > that as a major purpose of the List--enabling participants to compare > notes, and hopefully help each other come to a better understanding of > Peirce. No one is infallible, including Peirce himself, as he would have > been the first to insist; and accordingly, no one should block the way of > inquiry by treating their own pronouncements as somehow immune from > well-founded criticism. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:13 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > >> Jerry, list >> >> Yes - I understand what you are saying - that IF this particular Peirce >> list itself has no interest in examining how Peirce's work can be used in >> the pragmatic 'real' world - then, why am I even bothering to wish such a >> thing? >> >> My answer is two-fold. First - that this Peirce list does not consist of >> only the small handful who actually post to the list. There are a lot more >> members. Nor does the Peirce world community consist of this handful - or >> even - of the members of this list. There ARE people who are not on this >> list, who are interested in Peirce - and who work in AI, in biology, in >> physics, in economics. That is - their primary interest might be in 'how >> does biological adaptation function' - and they might find that the >> Peircean analytic framework is a powerful analytic means of explaining the >> dynamics of such. >> >> And therefore, second - I feel that Peirce cannot be reduced to the >> particular interest of the few who post to this list. So, I don't like to >> see Peirce 'publicized' so to speak, via an important list - as functioning >> only in that one area that this small group are focused on. Peircean >> semiosis is much more than this - and I don't think we should accept such a >> reduction. >> >> Furthermore - newcomers to Peirce should, I think, be made aware of >> the pragmatic functionality of the Peircean analytic frame - as I have >> outlined - and how it can be extended, as Peirce himself did, into >> examining the real existential world. >> >> So- just because I am met with either silence or hostility by a few, this >> doesn't mean that the Peircean analytic framework - as a pragmatic tool - >> deserves silence or rejection. >> >> Edwina >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
