John, List: When have I ever declared that my "conclusion is what Peirce intended"? When have I ever described my objective as "developing a definitive reconstruction of Peirce's semeiotic"? When have I ever maintained that my "version [of semeiotic] is what Peirce intended"? When have I ever denied that my "conclusions are [my] own, not Peirce's"? When have I ever "construct[ed] a long thread of quotations ... and derive[d] some rigid conclusion that [I] claim[] is what Peirce intended"? Please provide *specific *quotes from me to back up *each *of these serious allegations. Otherwise, I request a retraction and an apology.
On the contrary, I have explicitly acknowledged that my speculative grammar is *not *identical to Peirce's, and I have even pointed out some *specific *differences--such as abandoning the 66-sign taxonomy based on a linear ordering of the ten trichotomies, as well as associating the immediate object/interpretant with a type, the dynamical object/interpretant with a token, and the final interpretant with the sign itself. I have recently stated plainly on multiple occasions that all my posts are expressions of my personal opinions based on my interpretations of Peirce's writings, and that this should go without saying. On the other hand, I have read many books and papers in the secondary literature that assert, "Peirce believed X" or "Peirce held Y" or "According to Peirce, Z." There is absolutely nothing wrong with such statements--even when X, Y, and Z are paraphrases or summaries, rather than verbatim quotations--as long as they can be adequately supported from Peirce's actual writings. John's slides linked below are a good example of this, translating some of Peirce's ideas into the concepts and terminology of modern logic. Why is such an approach acceptable for him in a conference presentation, but not for me in an e-mail list discussion? Again, *why the double standard?* Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 8:51 AM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Gary, > > That sentence up to the comma is my primary objection to Jon's writings. > As for the substance, my second objection is Jon's claim that his > conclusion is what Peirce intended: > > GR> Your arguments *contra* Jon Alan Schmidt have been consistently > methodological, not at all substantive. > > Jon has done useful work in highlighting some important quotations in > Peirce's writings and stating his own opinions about how they are related. > That's OK. But I object to his claim of developing a definitive > reconstruction of Peirce's semeiotic. That is a task that Peirce attempted > to do on several occasions. But his ideas were constantly growing as he > was writing. He could never produce a single coherent version. If Peirce > himself could not produce a definitive version, nobody can claim that their > version is what Peirce intended. > > GR> More to the point, there are those scholars who rather completely > disagree with your and Edwina's (mis)characterization of Jon's work. > > Please quote anybody who objected to what I said about Jon's work. If you > can't dig up some ancient quotations, please ask them to restate their > objections. > > GR> Jon's work falls into a category of Peirce scholarship, *semeiotic > grammar*, which you and Edwina seem to oppose almost in principle, but > which is seen by many Peirce scholars -- and to this day -- as essential, > even quintessential, in the understanding of what Peirce's philosophy > involves, the changes in his terminology often being expressions of the > conceptual growth -- or fine turning -- of important, even crucial > philosophical concepts; and not only in his logic as semeiotic, but also in > his phenomenology and metaphysics. > > I believe that work is very important. I have learned a lot from reading > much of it -- certainly not all of it. But the most reliable authors > clearly state or imply that their conclusions are their own, not Peirce's. > When they do make some claims about what Peirce meant, they add some hedge, > such as "Peirce seems to say..." or "If I am right..." > > What I find most objectionable about Jon's method is the way he constructs > a long thread of quotations, each taken out of context, and derives some > rigid conclusion that he claims is what Peirce intended. If anybody > objects to that conclusion by citing other quotations, Jon find some excuse > for rejecting them. > > GR> Your seeming rush to 'application' is, as I now see it, based on your > hubristic (there's no more accurate term for it) estimation that you > *already* grasp what's important in Peirce's philosophy... > > I am writing for 21st c audience. I often quote Peirce's writings as a > motivation for the work I'm doing, but I don't claim that my work is what > he meant or intended. Following is a revised version of the slides I > presented at a Peirce session of an APA meeting in 2015: > http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf . > > As a result of that work, Fernando Zalamea invited me to participate in a > workshop in Columbia on existential graphs. At that workshop, I presented > another version of the ppe.pdf slides. As a result, I was invited to > convert those slides to an article for a special issue of the Journal of > Applied Logics. Slide 2 of ppe.pdf has the URL of that article, which > takes 72 printed pages. > > Please let me know what you find "rushed" or "hubristic". I have posted > many other articles and slides on my web site. If you like, I can send you > the URLs of others that rush to apply Peirce's writings to what I'm working > on. > > 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 .
