I said the two words you cite and they were repeated but I assume I am the one addressed. I am deeply sorry where offense has been taken. I regard every human being as beyond judgment and judging others as a futile and uncalled for activity.
. Buy 99 cent Kindle books at http://buff.ly/1ulPHlK <https://t.co/ywLbuOu5NX> Join KIVA https://buff.ly/2ZSAv83 <https://t.co/UQ2Q6m1e7G> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 4:53 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > List, > > Again I read, "Enough already." > > Indeed. Enough already of blocking the way of inquiry. If you disagree > with someone's interpretation of something posted to this list, then say so > and give your reasons. That ought to be sufficient. > > If you aren't interested in a threaded topic, don't read in that thread. > No one's going to miss you. > > If you aren't at all interested in what some particular list member has > to say, delete his or her posts before commenting on them, perhaps even > before reading them. No one will know or care. > > The lack of tolerance that I as list moderator have recently seen here is > simply not acceptable in this forum. In my view, such a lack of tolerance > reflects badly on the character of the intolerant person and not at all on > the person harshly treated. > > As Joe Ransdell, the founder of Peirce-L wrote in "How the Forum Works" > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM > > [Forum members expect] that those who are at odds with one another. . . 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 *[emphasis in the > original]*.* > > > While I believe some apologies are in order, I don't really expect to see > them. I do, however, believe that certain folk here should read over *their > own *recent comments to see if, upon reflection, they think they might > have shown intolerance toward the views and/or scholarship of another > forum member. If the answer is that they do* not* believe that they did, > then that is that, and there is nothing more to be said. But if the answer > is that they must admit *to themselves* that they indeed did express some > intolerance, then that person at least ought to consider if they want to > see that intolerance (or pique, or insults, etc.) published in perpetuity > on the Internet as an expression of their character. If not, they should > simply refrain from conducting themselves in such an inappropriate manner > in the future. As Ben Udell wrote here over a decade ago, "Peirce-L is a > salon, not a saloon." > > I sincerely hope that no one here will attempt to justify untoward conduct > on the list, although I can imagine that a list member or so will claim > that I'm "scolding" folk here. Nonsense. Scold yourself if the > uncomfortable shoe fits. Everyone should feel safe and free to express any > Peirce-related thoughts that they have in the Peirce e-forum. That is* > all* I'm saying. > > So, in a word, enough of blocking the way of inquiry; enough of > intolerance. > > Sincerely, > > Gary Richmond (writing as forum moderator) > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:01 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> Gary F, >> >> Thank you for a post that doesn't go off the "deep end" by attributing >> arguments to Peirce that he never stated, implied, ot even hinted. >> >> GF >> > any knowledge that any mind can have of God must consist of >> > predicates attributed to the real Subject we call “God” — which >> > name, says Peirce, is different from all other proper names because >> > it is definable. Every other proper name is an index of an entity >> > who, at some time in some universe of discourse, has existed in >> > some embodied form, and the prerequisite for knowledge of that >> > subject is collateral experience of it. >> >> I would just add that Peirce also considered proper names, such >> as Hamlet or Napoleon, for which collateral experience with the >> individual is impossible (EP 2:493). For both of them, our only >> source collateral experience is in what we read or hear. >> >> The same could be said about God. For most people, knowledge of >> God comes from the same kind of sources as our knowledge of Hamlet >> or Napoleon. Even people who can remember any definition from any >> catechism depend mainly on stories they read or heard. >> >> GF >> > If there is no evidence, no means of testing a hypothesis >> > inductively, there is no knowledge, no matter how fallible >> > or provisional we take it to be. >> >> Yes. Jon's so-called proof is a hypothesis about the existence >> and actions of something that conforms to some definition. The >> same conclusion could be derived by replacing the name 'God' with >> the name of any deity, demiurge, or monster. Benevolence is not a >> prerequisite. >> >> GF >> > I hope that will suffice, and is sufficiently focused on the >> > semiotic/logical/cognitive issues, because I’d rather not go >> > any further into theology than I have here. >> >> I very strongly agree. And I'll repeat Stephen's point: >> "Enough already." >> >> John >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
