Edwina, List: Thanks for proving my point by posting yet another emotional rant full of baseless allegations and empty complaints, rather than a substantive rebuttal.
Cheers, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > I'd like to comment on some of your points in your response to Robert > Marty -- > > 1. You, I think, missed, Robert's and Bernard Morand's points about what > BM refers to as using quotations, where " an abusive usage makes them > authoritative (dogmatic) arguments, lacking of textual context, and despite > the fact that Peirce himself claimed to be a faillibilist." > > Taking a quotation out of context and inserting it into a different > context, which is a semiosic action, obviously changes the meaning of the > whole argument. > > But, also, BM wrote: "To my sense this tendency to restrict the > discussions to quotes, multiplying them infinitely, repeating them as if > they were mantras impoverishes the debates." > > First - flinging quotations at someone is not an argument. It actually is > a tactic to silence discussion. > > What is this practice disloyal to? I see it as disloyal to science and > genuine discussion - as well as Peirce. After all, your statement of > " being faithful to Peirce's own texts when attributing specific views to > him" is semiosically incorrect. You cannot claim [though I know you try to > do so] that YOUR readings of Peirce are 'the correct, truthful reading' - > since ALL readings are semiosic and thus, interpretations are derived via > your own mediative mind and knowledge base. You seem to insist on a direct > dyadic transference of Peirce's views...to yourself. How is this possible? > How can you justify your self-assertion that YOU, above all, > Have-Direct-Knowledge of Peirce, while others are fallible readers? I think > this practice is a problem. > > 2] RM's reference to John Sowa is not an 'appeal to authority' but an > evaluation of another scholar's work. The use of an 'appeal to authority' > fallacy only occurs when it is used to justify an argument - and RM's > reference to John Sowa was not in the context of an argument but as an > example of someone else who has complained about the 'discursive practices' > on this List where posters use Peircean texts as 'dogmatic mantras'. > > 3] I also disagree that the only 'moral authority' is Gary Richmond. > That's unfair to him and an assertion of the irresponsibility of all > posters on this List. This is not a day-care centre. We are all, > presumably, adults on this list, and therefore, are each of us, > responsible for our own behaviour and our own interactions with others. > Therefore, for anyone of us to openly condemn, sneer at, mock, another , > insist that that person speaks only as a 'tribal member' ; is too incorrect > to respond to- and so on, - is our own responsibility. > > Therefore - your claim that 'it's not me, it's others who are doing bad > things' is not an excuse for the problems on this list. > > And your refusal to accept that others - who are adults and scholars - are > possibly making valid claims about these problems, with your assertion of:" > yet another emotional rant full of baseless allegations and empty > complaints- means that the problems will remain. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
