John, List: JFS: You are constantly insisting on some definitive conclusion in cases where Peirce himself is tentative.
Peirce is not at all tentative about matter being "a peculiar sort of mind," namely, "effete mind," going so far as to call this the "one intelligible theory of the universe." He is also not at all tentative about God as *Ens necessarium* being "in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience." Moreover, these are not isolated passages--he professes the same beliefs just as definitively (if not more so) in other texts, which I have quoted accordingly. Peirce was certainly fallible and might have been *wrong *in both these cases (as well as others), but on the basis of his own explicit testimony, there can be no reasonable doubt about *what he believed*. JFS: At one point, you asked why I more often take Edwina's position instead of yours. The issue is not whose position to take on the substance, but simply being consistent from a methodological standpoint. Why are exact quotations not required to support the persistent claim that in *Peirce's *cosmology (not just Edwina's), mind and matter "co-evolved" such that neither is primordial? Where does *he *ever explicitly state any such thing? Why are exact quotations not required to support the persistent claim that *Peirce *(not just John Sowa) considers his 1911 explanations of EGs to be his "best and final version" of them? Where does *he *ever explicitly state any such thing? JFS: The answer is that she (and most other subscribers) have a more coilaborative attitude. But instead of trying to reach a consensus, you lash out with some attack. In my experience, there is nothing "collaborative" or consensus-oriented about Edwina's attitude. I agree with Mike Bergman's assessment that she instead comes across as "incessantly confrontational" ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00302.html). In particular, she is the one who routinely "lash[es] out with some attack" whenever anyone points out where her alleged interpretations are plainly incompatible with Peirce's actual words, rather than engaging with the substance of the objection. JFS: Instead of trying to understand the issues, you lash out with an attack. Rejecting a bare assertion and then giving *reasons *for doing so is not "lash[ing] out with an attack," it is engaging with the substance. The proper response by anyone who disagrees is to make a *better *argument, not just complain (again) about my methodology. JFS: As Peirce himself said, mathematics (which includes mathematical logic) is the only subject in which anyone who is familiar with that version of math is qualified to make definitive interpretations and corrections. JAS (quoting JFS): "For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations." JFS: On mathematical issues, no quotations are necessary. We are not discussing mathematical issues here. I am simply asking for exact quotations where Peirce *explicitly *says (as claimed) that "mathematics (which includes mathematical logic) is the only subject in which anyone who is familiar with that version of math is qualified to make definitive interpretations and corrections." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:29 PM sowa @bestweb.net <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Jon AS, List, > > Before saying anything else, I recommend two articles in E. C. Moore & R. > S. Robin, eds,,(1964) *Studies in the Philosophy of C. S. Peirce:* > Victor Lowe, "Peirce and Whitehead as Metaphysicians"; and C. Hartshorne, > "Charles Peirce's 'One Contribution to Philosophy' and his most serious > mistake". > > Lowe shows a great deal of commonality in the views of Peirce and > Whitehead. Hartshorne claims that Whitehead's *Process and Realit*y was > far better than Peirce's remarks about God and his relationship to the > universe. He maintains that Peirce's mistake was his failure to recognize > the importance of processes. I agree with both of them. But I suspect > that Peirce himself was beginning to recognize the need for processes in > his remark in L231 (NEM 3:191) where he discussed his desire to go beyond > two-dimensional EGs to "stereoscopic moving images". > > Compared to Whitehead's book, Peirce;s comments about 'effete ,mind' just > add some meaningless jargon to Schelling. > > Re previous notes: Did you read those slides: > http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf ? They don't show that communication > by language is impossible, but they do show that the meaning of words is > (a) always context dependent and (b) shifting by microsenses (small > continuous amounts) from one context to another > > JFS: Every interpretation by anybody is always dependent on the context, > which includes (1) their own background and education, (2) what they have > read of Peirce's other writings and how they interpreted them, (3) Peirce's > own understanding of the issues and his intentions in writing the MS being > considered.on the dates he wrote it and revised it. > > JAS: No one is suggesting otherwise > > On the contrary, you keep insisting that you are reaching some kind of > definitive conclusion. You are constantly insisting on some definitive > conclusion in cases where Peirce himself is tentative. Just read some of > his discussions with Lady Welby, where he suggests various options > tentatively. > > JAS: as I said before, members of the community of scholars inductively > evaluate each interpretative hypothesis.... > > A community of scholars requires a supportive collaboration, not constant > bickering. At one point, you asked why I more often take Edwina's > position instead of yours. The answer is that she (and most other > subscribers) have a more coilaborative attitude. But instead of trying to > reach a consensus, you lash out with some attack. > > For example, I said that my comments were based on the issues discussed in > the natlog.pdf text. That is the context for what I wrote. Did you read > that before attacking what I wrote? > > JFS: ... nobody's context is sufficiently similar to Peirce's that they > can make any claims that their interpretation is what Peirce intended for > the purpose of that reader. > > JAS: I reject this assertion... > > There you go again. Instead of trying to understand the issues, you lash > out with an attack. I am not claiming that it's impossible to get a > useful interpretation for many purposes. But I am saying that what Peirce > wrote is highly context dependent. Furthermore, his ideas were constantly > developing over the years. Two MSS with the same words in different years > may have very different interpretations. > > In some cases , (for example R699 and R670), the same words in different > months may have radically different meanings. Fortunately, those texts are > about mathematical issues for which the formalism is fundamental, and the > words are secondary. > > JFS: As Peirce himself said, mathematics (which includes mathematical > logic) is the only subject in which anyone who is familiar with that > version of math is qualified to make definitive interpretations and > corrections. > > JAS: For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact > quotations > > On mathematical issues, no quotations are necessary. In mathematics, a > student may correct a professor's mistake, and the professor will thank the > student. I had done that when I was a student, and I have had students who > corrected my mistakes. Those corrections are always appreciated. (or almost > always). > > JFS: On anything written in a natural language, nobody can claim "a high > degree of confidence" for other readers who have a similar level of > education. > > JAS: This statement is self-refuting since it is written in natural > language. If it were true, then nobody would be able to claim "a high > degree of confidence" about what it means, let alone evaluate it as true. > > Since you didn't understand the context in which I intended it, that shows > that I was right.. Peirce himself realized that very few people understood > what he was writing. > > JAS: Again, the claim that *all *natural language is hopelessly vague and > ambiguous is patently absurd > > There you go again. Instead of trying to understand what I meant, you add > the words 'all' and 'hopelessly. > > And please note that Peirce himself was frustrated by the difficulty of > getting anyone to understand his most important ideas. His longest and > closest friend, William James, failed to understand most of what he was > trying to say. Note how thankful Peirce was tp get si[[supportive comments > from Lady Welby. > > JAS: Peirce effectively rejects it by advocating his carefully considered > ethics of terminology (CP 2.219-226, EP 2:263-266, 1903), stating therein > that "it is wrong to say that a good language is *important *to good > thought, merely; for it is of the essence of it." > > On the contrary, he understood the difficulty very well. That is why he > was constantly trying to overcome the inevitable vagueness of ordinary > language by inventing new terminology and writing rules that he hoped > other people would follow. > > If Max Fisch and his students hadn't devoted many years of hard work, none > of us would be reading his writings. > > 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 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.
