Gary F. You wrote:
> > 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. -- Before I comment, a question. Is this a sincere opinion expressed after carefully reading the words commented upon? best, Auke > Op 30 maart 2021 om 14:49 schreef [email protected]: > > > 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 > Christianhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
