Edwina, sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that your attempts to block the road of inquiry (such as your “six principles”) have been successful.
However, if you don’t see the difference between inquiry and expressing a personal opinion, it would be futile for me to try to explain it here. Anyway I would only be paraphrasing what I (and Peirce and Susan Haack) said at http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#attend. Gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> Sent: 25-Apr-20 08:22 To: 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; g...@gnusystems.ca Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation Gary F - please tell me how I am 'blocking the way to inquiry'. When I am critiqued by JAS when I use the phrase 'dynamic semiosis' because Peirce used the term 'dynamic' in a textual reference to the dyadic action of Secondness - that response is, in my view 'blocking the way to inquiry'. When I am critiqued by JAS that when I refer to Peircean thought WITHOUT using a textual reference - that such an analysis is just my personal opinion - then that response is, in my view, blocking the way to inquiry'. After all - it is absurd to consider that most of us - who have been studying Peirce for years - should not be allowed to discuss Peircean theories unless every statement is supported by a specific text! When I refer to Peircean texts to support my interpretations [eg, of cosmology] and am instead told by JAS that 'this is early Peirce' and therefore not necessarily valid - I feel that this is 'blocking the way to inquiry'. I think that providing the Peircean text does not also mean that one understands that text in the full depth of Peircean thought. Such a tactic can, in itself, 'block the way of inquiry' for it doesn't allow the researcher to examine how the MEANING can be used to examine reality....and thus - can be moved into examining the biological and societal worlds. Edwina On Sat 25/04/20 8:00 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> sent: 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 Sent: 25-Apr-20 05:32 To: Peirce-L 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 <javascript:top.opencompose('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> <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> <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 > wrote: <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> List, <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> I got flabbergasted reading JAS response to John. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> It proves possible to tenaciously stick to the authoritarian method in order to uphold one's own a priori principles. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> But only at the price of disregarding or disqualifying a lot of what has been written by the authority. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> As my mother used to say: One sees the sliver in the eye of the other, but not the girder in ones own eye. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> That's the moment dialogue gets a nasty taste. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Regards, <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Auke <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <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 . 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 . <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 . 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 .
