Jon and Edwina,
JAS
JFS: My *only* complaint is about the word 'harmonize' and the claim
that your theory is a harmonization of what Peirce intended ... If
you called your theory Peircean, I would have no quarrel. But if
you call it Peirce's or claim that it is what Peirce intended, I
can't let it stand.
JAS: I keep asking, and you keep failing to answer--when and where
have I ever made such a claim?
I keep copies of most of the messages I send, but delete most of the
ones I receive. So I can't list all the occurrences. But following
are two (of many) that illustrate the point:
JAS
5/11/2019, 10:14 PM
My purpose (as usual) is to interpret Peirce by attempting
to harmonize each passage that I encounter with his corpus
taken as a whole, in accordance with my systematizing and
regularizing tendencies.
8/2/2018, 4:44 PM
Eventually I will be going back to see whether and how I
can harmonize this recent line of thinking with my earlier
one that focused on Form/Matter/Entelechy.
The phrase "(as usual)" confirms my impression that these lengthy
threads are not about the matter at hand, but about a preconceived
vision of Peirce's corpus.
The second quotation indicates that JAS has several "lines of
thinking", which he can "go back to" and "harmonize" with new
lines that may come up in a discussion.
By itself, having a personal vision of some topic is not bad.
But in any lengthy thread with JAS, I get the impression that
the implicit topic is some preconceived harmony lurking in the
back of his head.
JAS
Why the double standard? [about Edwina's "analytic framework"]
ET
There is absolutely nothing in my outline that can't be found in Peirce.
I sympathize with ET on this point. But I'd like to see any such
outline, diagram, text, or harmonization posted online. It should
be possible to cite the URL rather than some email note from months
or even years ago.
ET
What is needed, in my view, is to move one's use of Peirce beyond
academic discussions of his specific terminology and text - and see
how his actual analysis applies to the real world and how it can
explain the functional operations of this real world.
I very strongly agree. My major frustration with Peirce's writings
is the limited number of examples. The few examples he stated --
the word 'the' as an example of a token -- have been quoted and
requoted far too much. We desperately need many, many more examples.
And those examples should be posted online. Is it possible to get
a web page that is dedicated Peirce-L contributions that are more
substantial than a typical email note? They don't have to be
polished for publication, and the authors should have the option
of updating them as their ideas develop.
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 .
