BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
don't think these suggestions - of not using 'you' [or a personal
name or synonym] or 'not taking offense' will deal with the problems
of the List.
I still think that it's a tribal attitude, where some posters assume
that their post 'correctly' presents Peirce while another post is 'not
what Peirce meant'; ..i.e., the attitude is one of self-assumed
authority. Again, this type of post rejects the fact that ALL
readings of Peirce are interpretations - because the nature of
reading is triadic, is semiosic, and there is no direct
text-to-reader transference of knowledge.
Therefore - if only posters would acknowledge this, and rather than
reacting to someone's post with 'NO, that is not what Peirce said'...
Instead 'cool it'...and say something like: 'My interpretation of that
passage is different...I read it as....."
That would acknowledge that one doesn't set oneself up as The Tribal
Authority - but- as a co-researcher-of-Peirce who has a different
interpretation.
But- I doubt if this suggestion will happen! I've made this same
suggestion countless times - with no result. The authoritative
rebuttals continue, the claims that 'your post is an emotional rant';
that your post is your own opinion about the world and does not
represent Peirce'.....these all continue.
Edwina
On Wed 06/10/21 2:55 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Jerry C., List:
JLRC: What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community
and our communications?
John Sowa and Gary Fuhrman each offered advice a few years ago that
I have generally tried to follow in my own List participation,
although I have not always been successful.
JFS: In another email list some years ago, a wise soul made a
suggestion for reducing heated arguments in a debate: Avoid the word
'you'. Every occurrence of the word 'you' shifts the focus from the
statement to the person who made the statement. This immediately puts
that person on the defensive--and the result is an escalating round of
ad hominem attacks and defenses. For the list I mentioned, the
practice of avoiding the word 'you' kept the peace, shortened the
debates, and made life more pleasant for everyone. (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00018.html [1])
GF: As we’ve seen here recently, people who are inclined to be
defensive (and to engage in heated debates) will tend to do so
regardless of the presence or absence of the word “you” (or any
other particular word) in a message. Shifting the focus from the
statement by “taking it personally” and reacting against some
imagined slight in it is a habit that can’t be cured by avoiding
any specific word across the board. The rule I have invoked in my
past experience moderating email groups is simply this: Do not take
offense. If nobody takes offense, nobody can give offense, even if
they are trying to. Those who are defensive about their own
statements, on the other hand, will often take offense when none is
intended. If we can avoid this, the impulse to give offense is likely
to dry up, because the would-be offender will not succeed in getting
the reaction he seeks.
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00019.html [2]
)
It seems to me that the quality of our List discussions would likely
improve considerably if everyone would (a) refrain from posting "you"
messages, especially when the subject matter is potentially
contentious, and (b) deliberately choose not to take personal offense
at anything posted by anyone else.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:05 AM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com [5]> wrote:
Bernard:On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand wrote:
It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad quality level
of the discussions on Peirce-l. My feelings are fully parallel with
yours.
Your articulative description of the styles of communication denotes
the essential nature of the subjective logical fallacies that
constrain the discussions to the very, very narrow interests of some
scholars.
Such styles, while offering a sense of historical truth functions,
ignore the historically historic roots of CSP writings in centuries
of earlier scholarship as well as his extreme breath of knowledge and
imagination in mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and multiple
natural languages, thereby reducing brilliance to dullness. The
consequence is the turning of lively ideas into deadly boredom. (If
not even more deadly complete mis-representation.)
What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and
our communications?
Cheers
Jerry
Postscript for Robert Marty: Do you believe that CSP’s logic is
congruent with Robinson arithmetic? :-)
Links:
------
[1] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00018.html
[2] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00019.html
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'morand.bern...@neuf.fr\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
