Auke, list,
Since a remark of mine was misappropriated by Edwina recently as an excuse for
yet another attack on Jon Alan Schmidt, I think I have a responsibility to
support what our moderator has said about these attacks — and to ask Edwina and
Jon S. kindly to stop blocking the path of inquiry.
John Sowa in particular has made some valuable contributions to the list, but
in the past year or so he’s contributed nothing new, turning instead to
vociferous attacks on JAS and nonsensical claims about what Peirce would
“cringe” at. I think the motivation for these attacks is laid bare in your own
post (copied below): Jon’s ongoing inquiry into the development of Peirce’s
speculative grammar has consistently relied on direct quotations from Peirce,
many of which have never been posted to the list before. Apparently this is
deeply resented by John and Edwina (and you too?) because these Peirce texts
are difficult to reconcile with their preconceived notions of what Peirce was
doing. It is those notions which constitute a “rigid box” in which they would
like to confine Peircean scholarship — while forbidding other scholars such as
Jon from paraphrasing Peirce, or even pointing out connections between one
Peirce quote and another. If you don’t see the hypocrisy of this, you must have
a girder in your own eye.
As I said before, I don’t have a strong interest in Jon’s inquiry, except where
his discoveries urge me to reconsider what I’ve previously written about
Peircean semiotics in my book. Jon doesn’t have a strong interest in my book,
either. But it’s obvious to me that his constantly evolving inquiry is an
exemplary instance of Peircean scholarship and has provided the greater part of
the original work that’s been posted to this list in the last year or two. The
claim that he “denies it to others to have their interpretation of Peirce's
thought” is frankly absurd. His real crime, in the view of those others, is to
build his systematic interpretation of Peirce’s speculative grammar on a broad
foundation of texts by Peirce himself. If you disagree, say so and say why, but
to attack him for posting it at all is nothing more or less than an attempt to
block the road of inquiry.
Gary f.
} Owing to general causes, logic always must be far behind the practice of
leading minds. [Peirce, BD ’Method’] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ transition conversation
From: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl>
Sent: 25-Apr-20 05:32
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Gary, List,
Well, this is nice meat for a semioticean. How is such a misunderstanding
possible?
For me the sliver pertains to John and the girder to JAS.
It is JAS who on the one hand demands literal quotes (which belongs to text
exegesis) but on the other avoids the meat (i.e. doing semiotics as a science).
And on top of that for himself leaves room to divert:
Again, it should go without saying for all my posts (including this one) that
they are expressions of my personal opinions based on my interpretations of his
writings.
But denies it to others to have their interpretation of Peirce's thought.
Auke
Op 25 april 2020 om 4:35 schreef Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com
<mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com> >:
Auke, List,
Auke wrote: I got flabbergasted reading JAS response to John.
GR: Yes, seeing John's self-contradictions spelled out was pretty astonishing,
and revealing, to me as well. They've been pointed out before; I've done so
myself on-list and off-list, apparently to no avail.
Auke: It proves possible to tenaciously stick to the authoritarian method in
order to uphold one's own a priori principles. But only at the price of
disregarding or disqualifying a lot of what has been written by the authority.
GR: Indeed, John has certainly demonstrated this the last couple of years. It
always surprises -- nay, shocks -- me. The double standard is patent.
Auke: As my mother used to say: One sees the sliver in the eye of the other,
but not the girder in ones own eye.
GR: My mother used to say this too. It was, of course, Jesus who first said it
(see: Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:42). It's certainly apt here. Luke's version:
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote
that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine
own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Auke: That's the moment dialogue gets a nasty taste.
GR: I agree that such obvious hypocrisy is a nasty practice. As list moderator,
I'm writing this to hopefully nip it in the bud. We've been through this sort
thing here before and even rather recently (last year). This kind of
double-standard is truly appalling and, as I've argued herel, completely
counter to forum culture.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
www.avg.com
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:53 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl
<mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> > wrote:
List,
I got flabbergasted reading JAS response to John.
It proves possible to tenaciously stick to the authoritarian method in order to
uphold one's own a priori principles.
But only at the price of disregarding or disqualifying a lot of what has been
written by the authority.
As my mother used to say: One sees the sliver in the eye of the other, but not
the girder in ones own eye.
That's the moment dialogue gets a nasty taste.
Regards,
Auke
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
www.avg.com
-----------------------------
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
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu <mailto: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 .
