BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, thanks for your response. I know you try to mediate and
smooth out differences among the posters and I know it's not easy.
But Jon didn't say that " [everyone] should be allowed to read and
interpret Peirce's work on their own." After all, that doesn't set up
what is clearly required by him - an "accurate understanding of
Peirce's work ". Who defines what is 'accurate'?
And he wrote:" Newcomers to Peirce should first be made aware of
Peirce's own analytic frame, including his typically very precise
terminology." Who holds the content of this 'accurate and precise
information' - and provides it to newcomers who thus are not allowed
to interpret Peirce on their own but must FIRST accept an authorized
'analytic frame' and 'very precise terminology'.
The Final Interpretant/Truth may not be reached - and we can't
assume that we hold it, firmly and accurately, in our control and we
can't ask that newcomers accept our views as the FI.
By the way - Auke's image of the three women - is a nice one!
Edwina
On Tue 02/04/19 12:05 AM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, Jon, List,
Jon quoted Edwina, then quoted her again as response to her
question:
ET: ... who do you think should be the authorities who decide on,
as you say, what is 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'?
JAS: You answered your own question ...
ET: ... don't you think that they should be allowed to read and
interpret Peirce's work on their own[?]
Edwina, I think you misinterpreted Jon's response. You wrote:
JAS: " ... who do you think should be the authorities who decide
on, as you say, what is 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'?
ET: No- I didn't answer this question and I've no idea why you
wrote this. ET: I asked YOU to answer it
Jon was merely saying that the answer to your question "who do you
think should be the authorities who decide on, as you say, what is
'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'? " was, as you wrote: "
[everyone] should be allowed to read and interpret Peirce's work on
their own."
And that is all.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication Studies LaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:06 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS - I repeat
ET: ... who do you think should be the authorities who decide on,
as you say, what is 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'?
No- I didn't answer this question and I've no idea why you wrote
this.
I asked YOU to answer it - since you yourself introduced the phrase
of 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'. That phrase, after
all, sets up an axiom that there is one such understanding - and I'd
like to know who.makes.that.decision. You insist that it is 'the
starting point'. Again - who sets up this definition of The Accurate
Understanding?
And you wrote:" Newcomers to Peirce should first be made aware of
Peirce's own analytic frame, including his typically very precise
terminology." Why can't they read Peirce on their own and decide for
themselves what is his analytic frame?? Who are you suggesting should
'make them aware' of it?? Who should inform them of this 'analytic
frame' - and after all - we do have disagreements about the nature of
this frame - so, WHO defines the 'accurate one'? And WHO defines the
'very precise terminology' - since from what I've seen on this list,
the terminology is not in the least precise and not everyone agrees
with the meanings of these terms. You've participated in months of
arguments about terminology!
Finally - with reference to the term of 'unPeircean' - You are
offering a red herring argument that such a term hasn't been used in
2019. It's been used quite often before. Name-Calling? Give me an
example.
Again - this is going nowhere. My whole point is that the Peircean
analytic framework is a powerful means of analyzing pragmatic
reality, the real-life situations in chemistry, biology, economics,
societal organization, AI etc - and being met with derision and
derogatory comments when examples of research are offered that could
be examined within this framework - is not conducive to scholarly
work.
As I've said - there ARE scholars who are using Peirce to examine
what's going on in biology, in economics, in AI - and my view is that
they are right to do so - since his analytic framework is indeed a
powerful tool to do so. Do they have to persuade the members of this
list? No - they have to persuade their colleagues in the pragmatic
world they work in. And - they have, in many cases, achieved such a
result. This list should at least acknowledge that it CAN be done.
Edwina
On Mon 01/04/19 9:37 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: ... who do you think should be the authorities who decide on,
as you say, what is 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'?
You answered your own question ...
ET: ... don't you think that they should be allowed to read and
interpret Peirce's work on their own[?]
As I have stated recently and repeatedly, each of us must make the
case for the views that we espouse, and then let readers decide for
themselves who is more persuasive that his/her position is an
accurate interpretation of what Peirce actually wrote. The rhetoric
of righteous indignation is no more appropriate here than the
rhetoric of authoritative pronouncement.
ET: However, being told that one's views are 'unPeircean' is not
disagreement.
No one on the List has used that word to describe someone else's
views even once so far in 2019. On the other hand, only one person
on the List routinely resorts to Absurd Name-Calling With
Capitalization.
All I have said is that I find some of what you characterize as
"Peircean" to be inconsistent with Peirce's texts. In other words, I
disagree that your "analytic frame" is the same as Peirce's "analytic
frame." That is my opinion--nothing more, nothing less, with all the
weight (or lack thereof) that it carries accordingly.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:37 PM Edwina Taborsky 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:13 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
