Sorry, I forgot the address the list. A correction of the omision. -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht ---------- Van: Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> Aan: [email protected], Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Datum: 30 maart 2021 om 16:18 Onderwerp: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean Category Theory
Gary, So you did not for a moment consider the thought that Edwina was pointing to a distinction between text exegese aiming at best at laying bare the framework and application of the framework in order to explore the possibilities. Which in my estimate is what she is pointing at. Luckily enough we can ask Edwina directly and check our opinions. Edwina, what was your intention? best, Auke Op 30 maart 2021 om 15:49 schreef [email protected]: Auke, to answer your question, yes, it is a sincere opinion about the intended meaning of the word “real” in the words commented upon in Jon’s post. (Intended by the author of those words, obviously.) Gary f } { https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen Sent: 30-Mar-21 09:45 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean Category Theory 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] > mailto:[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] > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected] > mailto:[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] mailto:[email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > [email protected] mailto:[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.
