List,
Henceforth I'll address only "List" because while I am often implying
dialogue with a particular member, I wouldn't want others to not join
in.
Firstly (and this is just me) I love the Squid style because it
challenges me to use my x-ray eyes on all the conceptual layers, and to
compare chalk and cheese (this can be done at home, but not
simplisticly).
Likewise the Sidestep is an enjoyable challenge but I will say several
things about this. It does give rise to difficult situations but I want
to show how we can deal with them.
i - The person using this in a specific instance is doing so in this
specific instance (no matter if he "always" does it).
ii- Our repertoire of responses (and not just the person with their name
listed at the beginning) is wide; we can introduce an analogy; we can -
for day or two - wind down our own interventions in the debate over a
highly specific point whilst leaving it to others (which oughtn't to
mean just the one "sparring partner") to take it where they want to;
I mustn't try to import an ethos from "forums" or "blog comments" but,
in some I've seen, it doesn't matter if no-one takes me up on a point,
or if a new person butts in, or if their argument is inadequate. Here
obviously argument is supreme so we ought to help each other out - as
imaginatively as we can - because any particular participant might have
limited energy and time.
If a person repeatedly "won't" admit they sidestep, we could humorously
comment on a case by case basis always as far from ad hominem as we can
muster. Treating it on a case by case basis. That's merely an idea of
mine. As arguments like all entities in imagination, are concrete so it
is they have life of their own without imputing one of us to having
"animated" them.
Likewise selectivity: if a person has rejected the whole unjustifiably,
can we not state this as brefly as poss and point back to some sections
we posted before. If they reject it again we can state it again more
briefly still. Anyone else with a bright idea, can surely pitch in, and
help out.
It can be difficult to remember a staement is a question so perhaps we
should use actual question marks more often so as to reinforce the
impression of openness. And CSP was surely at home with paradox (as am
I).
My life history made me interested in the interface between psychology,
epistemology and intuitive logic. My impression was logic includes 3ns:
anyone comment on that please?
Gary, I should have been more explicit, I wasn't meaning to reinforce
any accusations against you that had been on weak grounds, I was simply
trying to sum up the recent inferences.
Michael Mitchell
former translator, UK
On 2020-05-14 14:53, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this
list, there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere.
That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true
interpretations of Peirce - and invalid/incorrect/untrue ones. But is
this necessarily the problem??
I don't think that a resolution to this view would be one that
promotes the relativism of 'diversity' - where 'all views are
acceptable. I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is
both valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are
more valid and accurate and truthful than others. So - Wimbledon does
exist!
I think the problems on the list aren't a drive to 'the truth' or
even diversity of views - for - really, there is a strong rejection of
diversity not simply in interpretations but above all in focus...It
would be nice for more diversity - not in views but in focus - ie,
moving Peirce into examining the real world in areas such as AI,
physics, biology - but that's not what I see as the problem.
I think a key problem is 'method' of argumentation. If we take as
'given' that the agenda/focus is to show an accurate analysis of
Peirce - then, how does one's Argument develop this?
Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of Peirce
by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? That - after
all, is one method [aka, the Squid Method]. It certainly exhausts the
reader into silence but - is it in itself proof? It certainly seems
reasonable; after all - quotations-are-quotations, so to speak. But-
is this an actual argument and does this method include understanding?
Another method is what I might call The SideStep - where someone's
post is rebutted with 'Peirce never used that word'- and thus, the
whole argument is dismissed as invalid...when the word [used in its
natural sense] is merely a synonym for the Peircean argument. Other
methods include of course, Selectivity, where the other person's
argument is dismissed by selecting one small part of it as
'problematic' and thus, the whole argument is thrown out. And so on...
These are hardly methods unique to this list but are found wherever
mankind gets together to argue and debate. We aren't pure and exempt.
Interestingly enough, on a list devoted to semiosis, ie, information
and cognition - the misunderstandings are huge. In my case, for
example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I have never said
that. My view is that theories are vital [as 3ns] but are empty unless
expressed within the actualities of the real world of 2ns. That is -
theories must be examined as to whether they actually, truthfully,
represent and inform us about the real world. Theories can't survive
on logic alone. But - despite my repeated assertions of this view - I
am defined as 'hostile to theory'! That's a neat defensive tactic,
using Tenacity, to not deal with my concern!
Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his
pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative
grammar! ...
-----------------------------
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 .
