Edwina, List: JAS: Edwina's explicitly stated view is that mind and matter "co-evolved," such that neither is primordial.
ET: JAS - you are misinterpreting and changing my outline. Which part of my summary as quoted here is inaccurate? ET: I am, from Peirce's texts, interpreting HIS cosmology. I ask again--please provide an exact quotation where Peirce *explicitly *states that mind and matter "co-evolved," such that neither is primordial. John Sowa presumably agrees that this would be the only valid basis for claiming that it is *his own *cosmology, rather than one *inspired by* his writings. ET: For you to say that my outline is 'HER cosmology, and that it is 'INSPIRED' by Peirce'..and that it is not 'the same as Peirces'...is indeed, a conclusion that my outline is 'unPeircean'. No, it is not. It is very possible, even common, for someone's view on a particular subject to be legitimately *Peircean* yet differ in some ways from *Peirce's *expressed view. In fact, that is why I deliberately subtitled my "Temporal Synechism" paper "A Peircean Philosophy of Time" rather than "Peirce's Philosophy of Time." I do not claim to be presenting the latter, because I recognize that I end up quoting and commenting on a lot of different texts that he wrote over the course of four-plus decades. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:13 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, Helmut, list > > JAS - you are misinterpreting and changing my outline. I am NOT presenting > MY cosmology [I don't have one] and I've no idea why you would say such a > thing. I am, from Peirce's texts, interpreting HIS cosmology. > > You wrote: I have never called Edwina's view "unpeircean." On the > contrary, as I have acknowledged before, she can certainly say that her > cosmology is inspired by Peirce's, and even claim that her cosmology is more > correct than Peirce's. What she cannot accurately assert is that her > cosmology is the same as Peirce's. > > Your statement, where you deny that you term my analysis 'unpeircean' is a > trivial word play. For you to say that my outline is 'HER cosmology, and > that it is 'INSPIRED' by Peirce'..and that it is not 'the same as > Peirces'...is indeed, a conclusion that my outline is 'unPeircean'. > Therefore - it is a trivial red herring of you to assert that you have > never called my analysis 'unpeircean'. Of course you have! You've denied > that it is an analysis of Peirce and instead, claim that it is 'Edwina's > cosmology'. > > Nonsense. I have no agenda of outlining my personal cosmology; I've > been providing my interpretation of Peirce's cosmology. > > And as so many of us have stated - neither you, JAS, nor I, can > unilaterally declare that our analysis of Peirce is the correct analysis. All > you can do - is offer up your analysis - as an analysis of Peirce ..and > leave it at that. You have no scholarly or other right to unilaterally > declare that Yours-is-the-correct-analysis. > > I know you won't accept this...but...that's how scholars operate. It's > called 'analysis' not preaching the rule-of-law. > > 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.
