Gary f., list,
I understand to have hit on a great devide between groups of listers. As far as
JAS is concerned, I already indicated my objections, and I already indicated
that I value it highly that he took the trouble to seriously read the
unpublished pages. I seldom meet a person that, as I did, took the trouble.
I suggested already to look at this from a semiotical point of view:
Well, this is nice meat for a semioticean. How is such a misunderstanding
possible?
--
Curiously enough this example fits in nicely with the discussion about the
total number of interpretants Peirce distinguished.
1906|Letters to Lady Welby|EP 2:478
There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of
the utterer; the EffectualInterpretant, which is a determination of the mind of
the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the
Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that mind into which the minds of
utterer and interpreter have to be fused in order that any communication should
take place. This mind may be called the commens. It consists of all that is,
and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in
order that the sign in question should fulfill its function.
---
Here we are in, what I call, the gamma part of semiotics. Demanding its own
identification of differences between interpretants. This cannot simply be
reduced to: immediate, normal and final interpretant.
Auke
> Op 25 april 2020 om 14:00 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca:
>
>
> 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. www.avg.com
> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> >
> >
> > 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. www.avg.com
> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > 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 .
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
