BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
What a bizarre response. There was nothing emotional in my post, nor
were my comments baseless and empty.
Again - what you are rejecting is that a number of posters on this
List - who are in their own right, respected scholars - have made the
complaint that there is
- an over-reliance on quotations-as-truth rather than as open
topics-of-discussion;
- an assertion by you, that it is possible to interact with texts
[in this case, Peirce's texts] directly rather than semiosically;
i.e., that you have the capacity for direct knowledge of the truth of
'what Peirce meant' while others are incorrect.
- a habit by some on this List to denigrate, belittle others -
rather than engage in discussion;
- an assertion by you that the only person on this list who is
allowed or required to engage in moral actions - is Gary Richmond,
while others on the List are not obliged and not responsible for
their words and actions.
Now - tell me - what is emotional about the above? Tell me how these
allegations and complaints - which have been made by several members
of the List - are 'baseless and empty'?
Edwina
On Sat 28/08/21 4:03 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
