Edwina, List: ET: Actually, no, I don't think that your outline is a pragmatic analysis of what I wrote; it's simply an ad hominem attack on me.
On the contrary, an *ad hominem* attack is directed against a *person*, while Gary F.'s post was very clearly directed against certain *positions *expressed in the particular post that he quoted and analyzed. ET: A pragmatic analysis would actually examine the meaning of my posts ... That is exactly what Gary F. did. ET: 'We can't examine the framework of Peirce in any functioning of the real world; we can only discuss His Words' This is an excellent example of a straw man, since no one on the List has ever advocated any such restriction. Instead, what I and others have maintained is that if the framework we are examining as it functions in the real world is not consistent with Peirce's actual words, then it is not "the framework of Peirce" at all. It might be a framework inspired by Peirce's actual words, and it might use (or misuse) a lot of his terminology, but it does not conform with his own thinking as expressed in his voluminous writings. Nevertheless, it might still be a framework that works very well in its specific context--disagreeing with Peirce is perfectly acceptable, even laudable where he gets something wrong--but it is important to *acknowledge *where there is disagreement rather than pretending that *one's own *framework is the same as what Peirce himself describes. ET: My advice - since you reject my analyses is: just delete my posts. It is hard to ignore a post that purports to be accurately conveying Peirce's thought but instead is falsely claiming his endorsement for the author's own idiosyncratic ideas. Gary F. calls attention to the specific case of misquoting CP 6.61 in such a way as to give the impression that it was Peirce's view that "the whole action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe," when it turns out that he was *explicitly repudiating* that view in the actual text. A reputable scholar would gladly welcome correction rather than doubling down on such a misleading attribution. As Peirce says in reference to his nominalistic mistake in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (CP 5.403, EP 1:132, 1878) nearly three decades later ... CSP: If the reader imagines that the propounder of the crystal question will be annoyed, instead of being gratified, at being set right, he may take my word for it that he does not know the man, who would incomparably rather undergo the mortification and substantial loss of credit attaching to having been proved a blunderer, rather than that anybody should be deceived by any fallacious argument of his.(R 320:30[28], 1907). May we all strive for that level of commitment to pursuing the truth, including frank admission of our errors when they are called to our attention. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 7:54 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F, list > > Heh- that was fun. Actually, no, I don't think that your outline is a > pragmatic analysis of what I wrote; it's simply an ad hominem attack on > me. A pragmatic analysis would actually examine the meaning of my posts - > and not just the physical text - ie, what you did was your own > 'cherry-picking'. Very superficial. That's what makes it fun. > > However, I don't expect, unfortunately, anything other from this list - > as its focus seems to be primarily either 'essentialist' in the sense of a > confinement to' the Words of Peirce; and no other word can be used' with a > strange reductionism of the meaning of these words - and 'We can't examine > the framework of Peirce in any functioning of the real world; we can only > discuss His Words'.... > > So- what are the options? We [a very general 'we'; I'm not going to name > names] will have to continue to either sneer at and condemn those > who explore Peirce-in-the-real-world and contemptuously define them as > 'misinformed' or 'meant to intentionally disinform'....or better yet - why > not just ignore and delete? I'd say the latter might be more relaxing. > > Because we who do examine Peirce in the real world, and use words from > other disciplines to show how these ideas are valid in those disciplines - > aren't going to vanish in the night. I'm not going into 'ad populum' but - > there ARE a myriad of 'those of us', and not just in the various sciences - > but- even in philosophy - who are exploring not merely different terms > which mean the same thing - but- the functioning of the Peircean > framework in both different disciplines and using different terms. > > My advice - since you reject my analyses is: just delete my posts. That's > a semiosic action - powerful - all in itself. > > 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
