Jon, thanks for these comments on my analysis of the phenomenon of misquotation. I’ve inserted a few of my own below.
Gary f. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: 29-Mar-21 21:46 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. JAS: 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. GF: In order to analyze the phenomenon of misquotation, I needed a concrete example, so I picked the first one I came across in the list postings. Since I never identified the author of the post, calling it “an ad hominem attack” shows a complete misreading. ET: A pragmatic analysis would actually examine the meaning of my posts ... JAS: That is exactly what Gary F. did. GF: My phenomenological/semiotic analysis was an attempt to show how the chosen text works semiosically, i.e. how it means. After that, my pragmaticistic analysis attempted to show what practical effects a misquotation can have on the real world of dialogue and public communication. ET: 'We can't examine the framework of Peirce in any functioning of the real world; we can only discuss His Words' GF: Evidently ET does not consider the world of scholarly and public communication to be “real.” This is an example of the extreme metaphysical assumptions that I referred to in my earlier post which was directed to Edwina. The irony here is that for ET, as shown in her dialogue with Jon, her own intellectual construction of a quasi-physical theory (based apparently on a misreading of one of Peirce’s diagrams and a few selected quotes) is supposed to be about the “functioning of the real world” because it is about the physical world — even though it generates no empirically testable predictions in the realm of physics, but simply attempts to translate some common knowledge of that real world into terms that she claims to be Peircean. — Now these remarks of mine will certainly be read by ET as “an ad hominem attack,” because that is how she reads any criticism, such as Jon’s critical comments in other threads, of the idiosyncratic intellectual constructions she claims to be Peircean. The predictable response is yet another counter-attack based on that misreading. Personally I think it’s time to opt out of the whole vicious cycle. So I will be taking Edwina’s advice about deleting her posts. JAS: 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. GF: Amen to that! Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
