Jon Alan, List
This response is another example of what I mean by "characteristic"
inability to produce a contrary argument. The corollary is a flight into
childish denials: no, no, no ... with always Nathan Houser used as an
authority figure of rescue, although I have shown that there is :
- misappropriation by the omission of the spirit of the whole text, The
forms of experience,
- misappropriation of the meaning of the word "juncture."
Regards,
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
Le mar. 5 oct. 2021 à 22:42, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Robert, List:
>
> This response is another example of what I mean by a characteristic
> adversarial stance that is unwarranted. No one is advocating
> "discriminatory attitudes ... towards mathematics." No one considers
> mathematics to be "evil" within the context of phaneroscopy. There is no
> "movement that opposes this essential collaboration between mathematics and
> positive sciences." No one is undertaking an "offensive against
> mathematics." No one is disputing Houser's quoted conclusion. No one is
> claiming that there is a "rupture" or "separation" between mathematics and
> experience. No one is engaged in a "rearguard battle." Please stop erecting
> these strawmen.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:53 PM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Jon Alan, List
>>
>> JAS's usual and unsurprising response is an authoritative judgment not
>> supported by any argument, illustrated by selected quotes interpreted in
>> specific ways. Once again, he has not read the text he is supposed to
>> criticize (this will appear later). One can add to that impute motives
>> without any justification. For my part, I will again carefully argue for
>> the benefit of those readers who will have the patience to follow my
>> detailed answer.
>>
>> 1- the first paragraph, whose first words reflect certain self-importance
>> ("I have refrained"), is of no interest since it contains only denials
>> without any argument refuting my allegations concerning the discriminatory
>> attitudes, underlined and sourced, towards mathematics in Belluci's text.
>>
>> 2 – the following paragraph, which begins with "*Instead, like Peirce*,"
>> is an outright annexation of Peirce in what JAS wants to make appear
>> "simply" as the camp of Orthodoxy. In this camp are those who know how to
>> distinguish, like Peirce, "phaneroscopy from mathematics "without
>> "*disconnecting
>> or separating*" them. It is a rhetorical figure of insinuation
>> introduced by "*Instead*" by which I am sent back to a camp of the "bad
>> guys," thus created in a performative way. This is the camp of those who
>> would voluntarily confuse these two levels. We guess that the whole sequel
>> will exploit this phantasmatic dichotomy of the Peircean community. But I
>> do not feel concerned because I place myself, *with Peirce, *in the camp
>> of those *"who* *distinguish*," except that I certainly have another
>> idea, always "*with Peirce*," of the connections between mathematics and
>> phaneroscopy.
>>
>> The following sentence goes even further with rhetoric (of the kind that
>> the semiologist Roland Barthes had detected [1]
>> <#m_-1940227308786793678_m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftn1>)
>> which consists in first admitting a little evil in its camp (*Phaneroscopy
>> depends on mathematics for principles*) to justify saying a lot of evil
>> about the other camp which would like *to control and even reduce*
>> phaneroscopy to mathematics. This is a way to impute these bad intentions
>> to me without providing any proof. If he had read me, JAS would have known
>> that I have always proposed a collaboration in a mathematical framework
>> consubstantial with the three Categories and their necessary relations of
>> interdependence. No more, no less. This proves once again that JAS did not
>> read my critique since I conclude at the end of 2.1:
>>
>> "Moreover, Houser's last note 44, devoted to a comparison with Husserl's
>> phenomenology, with which I am in total agreement, leads to a scientific
>> practice that is the exact opposite of that advocated by Belluci:
>>
>> *'This is, perhaps, another similarity between Peirce's and Husserl's
>> phenomenologies. According to Dougherty (1983, p. 167), 'Of the many claims
>> made on its [Husserlian phenomenology's] behalf perhaps the most
>> interesting is that phenomenology is able to ground philosophical
>> assertions in a manner which is neither purely formal nor purely empirical,
>> i.e., that phenomenology as a method is capable of transcending this very
>> distinction.' Although what I have argued is, perhaps, at best suggestive
>> of this Husserlian viewpoint, it seems to me that Peirce's phenomenology,
>> because of its overlap with both mathematics and the positive sciences, is
>> in more or less the same privileged position**.'* (p.24) [emphasize mine]
>>
>>
>>
>> It will be necessary to make a separate analysis - which will belong to
>> the sociology of research - of this current movement that opposes this
>> *essential
>> collaboration* *between mathematics and positive sciences.* Phaneroscopy
>> has a privileged position. It would be a serious mistake to deny this; on
>> the contrary, we should take advantage of it because it is rare in the
>> Humanities. "(p.9-10) [end of quote]
>>
>>
>>
>> I solemnly draw the list's attention to Nathan Houser's position stated
>> above, as I fully agree with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3 - The main point is precisely about the dependence of phaneroscopy on
>> mathematics. I have constantly asked this question to the "
>> *phaneroscopists*" who lead the offensive against mathematics: "*How
>> does this dependence manifest itself if mathematics and mathematicians are
>> relegated to a corner where they engage in deductive activities
>> disconnected from any experiential reality?*" For the first time, I
>> have some sort of response from JAS based mainly on a quote from Nathan
>> Houser. This shows that JAS has not read my critique, which he rejects
>> because I have retained *the same quote, but in favor of my point*
>> (p.9)! It is therefore worth looking at it more closely:
>>
>>
>>
>> *"These categories, though abstractable (prescindable) from experience,
>> are mathematical conceptions. Thus, firstness, Secondness, and thirdness
>> constitute an important link between the a priori world of mathematics and
>> the contingent world of experience, at which juncture we find the ground of
>> phenomenology". *(p.21) [emphasize mine]
>>
>>
>>
>> It is exciting because we can now clarify the postures thanks to the
>> meaning of the word "juncture." For JAS, this "juncture" obviously marks a
>> border, the line of separation. For him, one would only deduce on the side
>> of mathematics; on his side, one only retains principles. Except that we
>> place them in a decorative showcase since we do nothing with them in
>> practice. This is a skillful way for someone who has collected 61 versions
>> of the maxims of pragmatism[2]
>> <#m_-1940227308786793678_m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftn2>.
>> He knows perfectly well that he thus deprives these "principles" of any
>> meaning.
>>
>>
>>
>> And yet Nathan Houser, whom I quote again (p.9), writes a little above:
>>
>>
>>
>> *"In mathematics, the categories are found to be universal categories of
>> relational structures. In phenomenology, the categories are found to be
>> universal categories of experience. The conclusion we can draw is that
>> experience instantiates a mathematical structure and is, therefore, subject
>> to mathematical analysis." *(p.21) [emphasize mine]
>>
>>
>>
>> And if I am to believe the Merriam-Webster, that is how Nathan Houser
>> conceives this juncture:
>>
>> *Definition of **juncture*
>>
>> *1**: *a point of time
>> at this
>> *juncture **especially**: *one made critical by a concurrence of
>> circumstances
>>
>> *2a**: *JOINT <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joint>,
>> CONNECTION <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connection>
>>
>> *b**: *the manner of transition or mode of relationship between two
>> consecutive sounds in speech
>>
>> *3**: *an instance of joining: JUNCTION
>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junction>
>>
>> *Definition of **junction*
>>
>> *1**: **an act of joining**: **the state of being joined *[emphasize
>> mine]
>>
>> No idea of rupture nor separation in these lines... But perhaps I will be
>> reproached for not being a "native"? Will JAS be reproached for his
>> omissions when he quotes Nathan Houser?
>>
>>
>>
>> From now on, for me, all has been said, and I trust the sagacity of the
>> readers to draw conclusions about the rearguard battle that JAS and his
>> supporters are engaged in; in my opinion, it does the most significant
>> damage to the Peircian cause. On this point, I have also quoted the firm
>> position of *Cornelis de Waal*.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, finally, I must quote the admirable Carolyn Eisele, who succeeded
>> with the edition of the New Elements of Mathematics, to give Peirce a much
>> more accurate image than the one conveyed by JAS and his supporters; this
>> is what is at stake in this debate:
>>
>> *"Peirce hoped to create an exact philosophy by applying the ideas of
>> modern mathematical exactitude. He developed a semiotic pattern of
>> mathematical procedure with which to test validity in all areas of
>> investigation[3]
>> <#m_-1940227308786793678_m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftn3>."*
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> <#m_-1940227308786793678_m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftnref1>
>> Roland
>> Barthes <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes>, Mythologies
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythologies_(book)>, 1957, Seuil : Paris.
>>
>> [2]
>> <#m_-1940227308786793678_m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftnref2>
>> (1)
>> Peirce's Maxim of Pragmatism: 61 Formulations (researchgate.net)
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351211192_Peirce%27s_Maxim_of_Pragmatism_61_Formulations>
>>
>> [3]
>> <#m_-1940227308786793678_m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftnref3>
>> Carolyn
>> Eisele, Mathematical Methodology in the thought of Charles S. Peirce,
>> Historia Mathematica 9 (1982), 333-341, summary*.*
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Robert Marty
>>
>>
>> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
>> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
>>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
